OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 386 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 418Likes
Reply
Thread Tools
post #11551 of 11573 Old 12-21-2014, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,598
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 202 Post(s)
Liked: 100
Supposedly a good number of UHDs moved this holiday season but really need to wait at least until about a year from now, to get an idea of the 4K content situation -- 4K discs, ATSC 3.0, streaming, etc.

A lot of the enthusiasts who might pay a premium for 4K OLED are aware of this so LG might have some difficulty moving units during 2015.

Can they continue to develop and refine the manufacturing process during the next year without big sales?
wco81 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11552 of 11573 Old 12-22-2014, 12:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by wco81 View Post
Supposedly a good number of UHDs moved this holiday season but really need to wait at least until about a year from now, to get an idea of the 4K content situation -- 4K discs, ATSC 3.0, streaming, etc.

A lot of the enthusiasts who might pay a premium for 4K OLED are aware of this so LG might have some difficulty moving units during 2015.

Can they continue to develop and refine the manufacturing process during the next year without big sales?
the answer to your final question above would be no. LG has only installed capacity tor 8000 gen 8 sheets per month (out of a maximum M2 capacity of 26,000 sheets per month, but they will need to be selling through most of that 8000-sheet capacity to make any further progress on industrialization.

8000 gen-8 sheets per month amounts to 48,000 55" OLEDs or 24,000 65" OLEDS per month (or some combination of the two) assuming a perfect manufacturing yield. At stated manufacturing yields of 80%, the 8000-sheet per month capacity translates to a lower number of 38,400 55" or 19,200 65" OLEDs per month, but in any case, the phase 1 production capacity translates to a much higher production level than slag has had up to now (probably 10x or do), and LG will need to sell that number of TVs every month to have any hope of continued progress down the price curve.

This is the reason we will all know when M2 has truly kicked into production - OLED prices will take a dramatic and sudden drop.
fafrd is online now  
post #11553 of 11573 Old 12-22-2014, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
shinksma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wandering the intertubes, on the way to damnation
Posts: 2,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
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:

http://www.oled-info.com/lg-sold-mor...ared-last-year
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.

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my captors.
shinksma is offline  
post #11554 of 11573 Old 12-22-2014, 08:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
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.
Yeah, we are still a few years away according to this Nov 2014 interview with Dr. Conor Madigan, Kateeva's President and Co-founder:
Quote:
Q: When do you see inkjet-printed displays or TVs on the market?
We believe the first mass-production lines could be installed in 2016, so 2017 is a real possibility.
Rich Peterson is offline  
post #11555 of 11573 Old 12-22-2014, 02:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
ALMA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 683
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
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.
Completely disagree as architect and ingenieur. Less parts means less raw materials and easier construction and cheaper manufacturing costs. You forget that LG home entertainment business makes a plus last quartal even included with all OLED R&D costs and lower demand. They have enough cash to work this out.

LED is a spot light and LCD needs an backlight but mostly uniform. From point of view as a designer, a very difficult construction. Most costs for LCD are construction parts and this waste becomes expensive in long therm. Why the LCD industrie changed from CCFL to LED? It was cheaper, why Edge-LED and not FALD? It's cheaper. QDots adds more costs and it's only a marketing thing. The ordinary crowd doesn't care about picture quality.

The Kindle Fire HD display was more expensive than an AMOLED one. OLED is similiar to LCD because of the TFT backplane, but it doesn't need the backlight. OLED can be slimmer, efficient, bright enough for dailight use, transparent, flexible and LG's WOLED technology is fully compatible to all LG LCD fabs. Picture quality is a plus for marketing, but not the reason why OLED will succeed over LCD. OLED at the moment is only more expensive because of R&D costs and yes low production, but this will change if more will produced.

OLED has never to compete with LCD. That's not a format war and not an consumer choice and it's not about picture quality or accuracy. It's the evolution of panel and lighting technologies. LG is the biggest LC panel maker and Merck one of the biggest supplier for LC, but also seeing OLED as game changer in display and lighting market.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20141118000897

Of coures it needs time and problems still have to solved, but the industrie would be stupid to drop OLED. All knows OLED is the holy grail because of it's simple construction. The perfect solution for many problems for architectural, technical, lighting and product designs and has the potential to generate completely new markets, most people today can't imagine.
Mgibsoj likes this.

Last edited by ALMA; 12-22-2014 at 03:02 PM.
ALMA is offline  
post #11556 of 11573 Old 12-22-2014, 06:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,477
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson View Post
Yeah, we are still a few years away according to this Nov 2014 interview with Dr. Conor Madigan, Kateeva's President and Co-founder:
Yep. Conor and I have met and spoken. Smart guy, by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALMA View Post
Completely disagree as architect and ingenieur. Less parts means less raw materials and easier construction and cheaper manufacturing costs. You forget that LG home entertainment business makes a plus last quartal even included with all OLED R&D costs and lower demand. They have enough cash to work this out.
First of all, it's not even true that fewer parts = less raw materials. It can be true, but it isn't automatically true.

Second of all, there is nearly no correlation between raw materials cost and manufacturing cost. Not none, of course, if something contains gold and platinum, that will feed back into the cost of the finished good. If something is made with low-grade aluminum, it won't. But consider that solar cells are made of sand. But sand has to be turned into crystalline silicon, either polysilicon or mono-crystalline. Same raw material, different intermediate material, different end cost.

And, more importantly, hugely different cost over time even though the raw material stayed the same and the manufacturing techniques stayed the same. The cost of the intermediate changed wildly as did the efficiency of manufacturing. Note how little raw material cost mattered for solar.
Quote:
LED is a spot light and LCD needs an backlight but mostly uniform. From point of view as a designer, a very difficult construction.
For a designer, maybe. For a manufacturer in a world that already has produced billions of LCDs, no. It's ridiculously easy to make (a) TFT backplanes (b) LC layers (c) the BLU (d) color filter layers. In other words, it's ridiculous easy to make every part of an LCD. And the part that's unique to LCD vs. OLED -- the LC layer -- is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far cheaper than an OLED layer. It's so much cheaper that buying a BLU and adding it, a totally trivial operation, means the cost edge for LCD remains dramatic over OLED. Not to mention LED costs continue to fall.
Quote:
Most costs for LCD are construction parts and this waste becomes expensive in long therm.
This is an unsupportable statement that contains no facts.
Quote:
Why the LCD industrie changed from CCFL to LED? It was cheaper, why Edge-LED and not FALD? It's cheaper. QDots adds more costs and it's only a marketing thing. The ordinary crowd doesn't care about picture quality.
It's true, LED is now cheaper than CCFL. And it's true that "QDots" add cost that few will care about. Of course, the lack of concern for picture quality is bad news for OLED isn't it?
Quote:
The Kindle Fire HD display was more expensive than an AMOLED one. OLED is similiar to LCD because of the TFT backplane, but it doesn't need the backlight. OLED can be slimmer, efficient, bright enough for dailight use, transparent, flexible and LG's WOLED technology is fully compatible to all LG LCD fabs.
It's "fully compatible" to all fabs once the backplane step is fully ripped out and replaced with an IGZO backplane process (some LG fabs have this, some don't) and "fully compatible once you remove the entire LC process and replace it with an OLED vapor depo process.

I mean your claim is as true as "the NUMMI plant is 'fully compatible' with making Teslas". It is making Teslas, not Corollas. Of course, it's entirely been rebuilt inside.
Quote:
Picture quality is a plus for marketing, but not the reason why OLED will succeed over LCD. OLED at the moment is only more expensive because of R&D costs and yes low production, but this will change if more will produced.
OLED is more expensive on smartphones where the R&D is long part amortized and the production is plenty high. Your claim lacks evidence. And why would it get produced if it's more expensive and people who don't value picture quality aren't buying it?
Quote:
OLED has never to compete with LCD.
So long as it wants to lose, it most certainly never has to compete.
Quote:
That's not a format war and not an consumer choice and it's not about picture quality or accuracy. It's the evolution of panel and lighting technologies. LG is the biggest LC panel maker and Merck one of the biggest supplier for LC, but also seeing OLED as game changer in display and lighting market.
Consumers have voted for LED light bulbs and by the time OLED lighting is real, the next bulb replacement cycle will be mid-century. Good luck OLED lighting!
Quote:
Of coures it needs time and problems still have to solved, but the industrie would be stupid to drop OLED.
No one said they are dropping it, but it's also not apparently winning. At least no time soon.
Quote:
All knows OLED is the holy grail because of it's simple construction.
This is, again, a canard. "Simple construction" != a decade of failed efforts to manufacture at scale.
Quote:
The perfect solution for many problems for architectural, technical, lighting and product designs and has the potential to generate completely new markets, most people today can't imagine.
Yes, and OLED will do well in those. It's too bad none of them as are big as existing markets. And unless OLED is $2-3 per diagonal inch, many of them will be unaffordable even if technically feasible.

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 #11557 of 11573 Old 12-22-2014, 08:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Yep. Conor and I have met and spoken. Smart guy, by the way.



First of all, it's not even true that fewer parts = less raw materials. It can be true, but it isn't automatically true.

Second of all, there is nearly no correlation between raw materials cost and manufacturing cost. Not none, of course, if something contains gold and platinum, that will feed back into the cost of the finished good. If something is made with low-grade aluminum, it won't. But consider that solar cells are made of sand. But sand has to be turned into crystalline silicon, either polysilicon or mono-crystalline. Same raw material, different intermediate material, different end cost.

And, more importantly, hugely different cost over time even though the raw material stayed the same and the manufacturing techniques stayed the same. The cost of the intermediate changed wildly as did the efficiency of manufacturing. Note how little raw material cost mattered for solar.


For a designer, maybe. For a manufacturer in a world that already has produced billions of LCDs, no. It's ridiculously easy to make (a) TFT backplanes (b) LC layers (c) the BLU (d) color filter layers. In other words, it's ridiculous easy to make every part of an LCD. And the part that's unique to LCD vs. OLED -- the LC layer -- is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far cheaper than an OLED layer. It's so much cheaper that buying a BLU and adding it, a totally trivial operation, means the cost edge for LCD remains dramatic over OLED. Not to mention LED costs continue to fall.


This is an unsupportable statement that contains no facts.


It's true, LED is now cheaper than CCFL. And it's true that "QDots" add cost that few will care about. Of course, the lack of concern for picture quality is bad news for OLED isn't it?


It's "fully compatible" to all fabs once the backplane step is fully ripped out and replaced with an IGZO backplane process (some LG fabs have this, some don't) and "fully compatible once you remove the entire LC process and replace it with an OLED vapor depo process.

I mean your claim is as true as "the NUMMI plant is 'fully compatible' with making Teslas". It is making Teslas, not Corollas. Of course, it's entirely been rebuilt inside.


OLED is more expensive on smartphones where the R&D is long part amortized and the production is plenty high. Your claim lacks evidence. And why would it get produced if it's more expensive and people who don't value picture quality aren't buying it?


So long as it wants to lose, it most certainly never has to compete.


Consumers have voted for LED light bulbs and by the time OLED lighting is real, the next bulb replacement cycle will be mid-century. Good luck OLED lighting!


No one said they are dropping it, but it's also not apparently winning. At least no time soon.


This is, again, a canard. "Simple construction" != a decade of failed efforts to manufacture at scale.


Yes, and OLED will do well in those. It's too bad none of them as are big as existing markets. And unless OLED is $2-3 per diagonal inch, many of them will be unaffordable even if technically feasible.
I really appreciate the time and attention you put into your thoughtful responses, Mark. To the point, accurate, and concise (as usual).

I'm far from giving up on OLED and even hope that my next TV is an OLED (after the P70 I purchased a month ago, which appears to be more than good enough to tide me over until OL ED TVs are more mature and cost-competitive :-), but the road ahead for LG appears tougher than it did this Spring and as you point out, survival of LGs initiative into 2017 looks to be far from certain.

In my view, if 2015 proves to be another year of modest incremental progress, the clock will be ticking quite a bit more loudly on LG WOLEDs future. If they continue ramping M2 to full 26,000 sheet capacity next year and get pricing down to the level that sustains sell-through of that volume before year-end, they are still more or less on track and have a chance to achieve sustainability (which means M3 and more manufacturing volume) before the end of 2016.

But if M2 is still only manufacturing 8000 sheets per month a year from now, it will time to start predicting game over for LG WOLED the way you once did once for plasma and are now doing for Japanese-branded TVs of any kind.

What price will it take to sell through ~20,000 65" OLED TVs by mid 2015? We can speculate all we want and many seem to have a deep emotional stake in the answer to that question, but we all know it's well below 50% of current pricing and probably closer to 25% than 50%.

I've been stunned to discover the quality of 70" FALD LED/LCD Vizio has succeeded to sell for $2000 and I'm pretty sure 2015 will be the year when high-quality QDF FALD LED/LCDs at 65" for under $2000 become widely available. Even at 65" WOLED for $5000, that market reality is coming to pose a significant headwind for LG to overcome next year.

I'm rooting for LG WOLED and the first to admit that the black levels and contrast I have seen on the 55EC9300 I have gazed at over a dozen times at best buy is noticeably superior to the P70 FALD LED/LCD I have in my living room now, but I am also a realist about the speed with which the TV world is evolving in terms of both price (lower) and performance (higher) and so I just hope LG is able to progress quickly enough in 2015 to meet this growing challenge...
fafrd is online now  
post #11558 of 11573 Unread 12-22-2014, 10:18 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 703
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Yep. Conor and I have met and spoken. Smart guy, by the way.

First of all, it's not even true that fewer parts = less raw materials. It can be true, but it isn't automatically true.
The quotes about OLED's being cheaper to manufacture are worthless without the appropriate caveats. The part of the statement that is left out is that OLED's will be cheaper to manufacture when they have hit comparable yields to LCD's. I would add a further caveat that the LCD's need to be manufactured on the same substrate.

We can see this with smartphone panels. Samsung is claiming that they are "very close" to the moment when their smartphone OLED's will be cheaper to produce than LCD's. They dont say it, but I guarantee that this claim is limited to LTPS LCD's. This is on lower total volume than LTPS LCD's.

I doubt that smartphone OLED's have yet matched LTPS LCD's yields, but the lower bill of materials compensates for that. LGD has a tougher route to price competitiveness. They have higher bill of material costs due to the IGZO substrate and the LCD filters. OTOH, they they should have an easier time increasing yields since WOLED's are simpler to manufacture.

They are also only really going after the very high-end of the market right now. All of the picture quality improvements seen in high-end LCD televisions (FALD, quantum dots, non-TN displays) helps bring price competitiveness closer to reality.
slacker711 is online now  
post #11559 of 11573 Unread 12-22-2014, 10:23 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 67
doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom
sterlingjewel is online now  
post #11560 of 11573 Unread 12-22-2014, 11:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 1,365
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 269 Post(s)
Liked: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
I've been stunned to discover the quality of 70" FALD LED/LCD Vizio has succeeded to sell for $2000
Looks like the reviewers were stunned too... but not in a good way. The reviews at cnet, hdguru, and others are horrible on these 4K Vizios. I'm surprised you ended up buying one after spending all this time in these OLED threads.

I don't generally bother with LCD but looked at a Vizio when I was at BB over black friday. The processing artifacts with FALD enabled were way too distracting. You could see obvious gamma and color shifts. Would probably be impossible to calibrate this thing with FALD enabled and pointless with it off. Can't argue about the price though. $2K for a 70" will make 55" OLED at $3.5K a tough sell to the BB crowd.
Wizziwig is offline  
post #11561 of 11573 Unread 12-22-2014, 11:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,477
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
I really appreciate the time and attention you put into your thoughtful responses, Mark. To the point, accurate, and concise (as usual).

I'm far from giving up on OLED and even hope that my next TV is an OLED (after the P70 I purchased a month ago, which appears to be more than good enough to tide me over until OL ED TVs are more mature and cost-competitive :-), but the road ahead for LG appears tougher than it did this Spring and as you point out, survival of LGs initiative into 2017 looks to be far from certain.
I'm actually optimistic, despite the challenges ahead.
Quote:
But if M2 is still only manufacturing 8000 sheets per month a year from now, it will time to start predicting game over for LG WOLED the way you once did once for plasma and are now doing for Japanese-branded TVs of any kind.
So, yes, that would be bearish.
Quote:
What price will it take to sell through ~20,000 65" OLED TVs by mid 2015? We can speculate all we want and many seem to have a deep emotional stake in the answer to that question, but we all know it's well below 50% of current pricing and probably closer to 25% than 50%.
Sharp could not sell 50,000 of the Elite 70s at $6000+ a few years ago. Not close. I'm not sure what that says about the ability to sell 20,000 OLEDs at $5000 however. My sense is that's not a very interesting number of sales, though. I'm significantly more interested in what happens in the segments where OLED is in the universe of price competitive rather than the ones it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
The quotes about OLED's being cheaper to manufacture are worthless without the appropriate caveats
The part of the statement that is left out is that OLED's will be cheaper to manufacture when they have hit comparable yields to LCD's. I would add a further caveat that the LCD's need to be manufactured on the same substrate.
Right, thanks.
Quote:
We can see this with smartphone panels. Samsung is claiming that they are "very close" to the moment when their smartphone OLED's will be cheaper to produce than LCD's. They dont say it, but I guarantee that this claim is limited to LTPS LCD's. This is on lower total volume than LTPS LCD's.
So, yeah, "very close" after making well north of 100 million units. And not there. And only compared to LTPS, not close to a-Si. This just shows how far OLED TV is from competing with LCD TV. Years.
Quote:
I doubt that smartphone OLED's have yet matched LTPS LCD's yields, but the lower bill of materials compensates for that. LGD has a tougher route to price competitiveness. They have higher bill of material costs due to the IGZO substrate and the LCD filters. OTOH, they they should have an easier time increasing yields since WOLED's are simpler to manufacture.
So, again, the massive scale of Samsung's OLED display business for smartphones has allowed it to reach whatever scale economies exist. There is still some minor learning curve benefit which explains why they can move from "very close" to "better" perhaps in the near future. And then "better" will be in the percentage point range, perhaps slightly more. And this over LTPS, which will never be used in TV.

And while IGZO today is more expensive, the promise of oxide is that it will someday be cheaper than not just LTPS, but even a-Si. Whether that ever comes to pass or not, I cannot say. But it's the promise. Now, of course, oxide can be brought to bear on any display, LCD, OLED, whatever.

The point is: LG can get to a cost advantage. Someday. On much greater volumes. But the very chicken-and-egg problem we discussed in 2012 has not been scrambled.
Quote:
They are also only really going after the very high-end of the market right now. All of the picture quality improvements seen in high-end LCD televisions (FALD, quantum dots, non-TN displays) helps bring price competitiveness closer to reality.
Unless you're Vizio.

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 #11562 of 11573 Unread Yesterday, 02:30 AM
Member
 
HYMER DAXTER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: France
Posts: 53
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
HYMER DAXTER is offline  
post #11563 of 11573 Unread Yesterday, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,854
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingjewel View Post
doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom
Yeah, I don't know why that happens so much in this forum. Sometimes I think people who recently bought something other than OLED are hoping for failure and looking for any reason that might happen to help justify their decision.

I went back and read posts about a year ago in this thread and doom and the gloom was kinda sad, really... Samsung had said they were stopping new OLEDs for a few years, it was becoming clear that Sony and Panasonic weren't going to be able to deliver printed OLEDs anytime soon, and as a result so so many in this forum declared OLED dead at that time.

Sure, it's taking longer than we had hoped but OLED TVs are in no way dead or even dying, they are barely starting their run. And I think the run is going to be big. Really big. But it will take some time.

Oh, pardon me while I go and enjoy the best TV picture I've ever seen on my LG OLED.
Mgibsoj likes this.
Rich Peterson is offline  
post #11564 of 11573 Unread Yesterday, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


Sharp could not sell 50,000 of the Elite 70s at $6000+ a few years ago. Not close. I'm not sure what that says about the ability to sell 20,000 OLEDs at $5000 however. My sense is that's not a very interesting number of sales, though. I'm significantly more interested in what happens in the segments where OLED is in the universe of price competitive rather than the ones it isn't.
I typed too fast - that was supposed to say ~20,000 OLEDs PER MONTH. 8000 sheets a month translates to about 20,000 65" OLEDs per month, and if LG is not selling through at that level by June, it will be a bad sign.

Selling 20,000 65" OLEDs in 2015 is not going to move the needle for LG one bit. Selling over 20,000 per month throughout the second half of the year would justify the ramp to full capacity of 26,000 sheets/month by early 2016 (which is what's needed to stay on track).
fafrd is online now  
post #11565 of 11573 Unread Yesterday, 01:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,477
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Peterson View Post
Yeah, I don't know why that happens so much in this forum. Sometimes I think people who recently bought something other than OLED are hoping for failure and looking for any reason that might happen to help justify their decision.
Sometimes I wonder what the purpose is writing sentences like the above. You know full well that doesn't in any way apply to me. And if you're uncertain about my financial wherewithal to buy an LG OLED, let's discuss that offline.
Quote:
I went back and read posts about a year ago in this thread and doom and the gloom was kinda sad, really... Samsung had said they were stopping new OLEDs for a few years, it was becoming clear that Sony and Panasonic weren't going to be able to deliver printed OLEDs anytime soon, and as a result so so many in this forum declared OLED dead at that time.
Thing is, that was accurate. How many OLED TVs did LG sell across the entire world between those posts a year ago and now? Virtually none. I'd call that "dead."
Quote:
Sure, it's taking longer than we had hoped but OLED TVs are in no way dead or even dying, they are barely starting their run. And I think the run is going to be big. Really big. But it will take some time.
This is what I'd call a "very optimistic" view. The "run" was supposed to start in 2012. Instead, it's now supposed to start in 2015. In the upcoming year, OLED is supposed to capture a whopping 0.3% of TV sales worldwide!

When I suggested in 2012 that there was no way OLED would get to half of display sales (I included computers, but I apparently didn't need to) by 2020, I was met with derision. Yet it's now clear that OLED hasn't any chance of reaching half of TV sales by 2020. It's a mathematical impossibility.
Quote:
Oh, pardon me while I go and enjoy the best TV picture I've ever seen on my LG OLED.
I think this is the confusion point. No videophile alive disagrees that OLED can (does?) produce the best pictures out there. (The parenthetical concerns the skepticism of CR and others about some small issues.) But reality intrudes here....

1) It's not that much better a picture. I'm sorry but it isn't. If it were, things would be changing far more rapidly.
2) Quality alone doesn't win markets. And when the quality edge is small, it has an even tougher row to hoe.
3) Manufacturing reality (see above) means that this "big future" is years away, even if somehow the world goes against years and years of precedent and demands video quality. In fact, I'm not sure when the world has demanded video quality since the ability to hold a picture without futzing with rabbit ears was eliminated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
I typed too fast - that was supposed to say ~20,000 OLEDs PER MONTH. 8000 sheets a month translates to about 20,000 65" OLEDs per month, and if LG is not selling through at that level by June, it will be a bad sign.
OK, well then ignore the above math, but I disagree with you. The current pricing isn't designed to sell anywhere near that many of the 65s. The focus is obviously on the 55s right now. We'll know when that changes.
Quote:
Selling 20,000 65" OLEDs in 2015 is not going to move the needle for LG one bit. Selling over 20,000 per month throughout the second half of the year would justify the ramp to full capacity of 26,000 sheets/month by early 2016 (which is what's needed to stay on track).
Yes, and once LG is ready, they'll telegraph that pretty clearly.

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 #11566 of 11573 Unread Yesterday, 02:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 703
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
So, yeah, "very close" after making well north of 100 million units. And not there. And only compared to LTPS, not close to a-Si. This just shows how far OLED TV is from competing with LCD TV. Years.

So, again, the massive scale of Samsung's OLED display business for smartphones has allowed it to reach whatever scale economies exist. There is still some minor learning curve benefit which explains why they can move from "very close" to "better" perhaps in the near future.
I think you are underplaying what Samsung is about to accomplish. They arent just hitting price competitiveness with high-end LTPS LCD's. They are claiming crossover for all LTPS LCD's. Chinese vendors have started choosing OLED's in a number of models.

The equivalent for televisions will be when OLED's start taking over Wal-Mart.

We are years away from that, but that has never been the question that I think most on this forum are asking about. The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions. The ones with all of the bells and whistles that make LCD's competitive on image quality but also triple the price.

That looks a lot more doable considering what Samsung has accomplished in smartphones with unit volumes and screens areas that are dwarfed by their LCD competition.
slacker711 is online now  
post #11567 of 11573 Unread Yesterday, 06:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,477
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
I think you are underplaying what Samsung is about to accomplish. They arent just hitting price competitiveness with high-end LTPS LCD's. They are claiming crossover for all LTPS LCD's. Chinese vendors have started choosing OLED's in a number of models.
Hmm, I don't think I'm underplaying it. The reality is that global cap ex is still focused on LTPS LCD and not OLED. When that changes, it changes. Until then, not so much. DisplaySearch doesn't seen smartphone displays being dominated by OLED this decade at all. Do you? And if so why given that they talk to everyone who makes displays and asks them "what will you be making in 1, 2, 5 years?" I mean obviously those forecasts are fraught, but without far more capacity, the world isn't changing so quickly.

And there is minimal interest globally in being sole supplied by Samsung.
Quote:
The equivalent for televisions will be when OLED's start taking over Wal-Mart.
The above notwithstanding, I very much look forward to this day.
Quote:
We are years away from that, but that has never been the question that I think most on this forum are asking about. The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions. The ones with all of the bells and whistles that make LCD's competitive on image quality but also triple the price.
The problem with this "price point" is that it doesn't exist. It's a band and it keeps moving lower and lower. The top edge of the band, where Sony charges $5000 for a 65-inch TV, almost no one cares about it. I'm not especially sure Sony really cares about it to be completely candid. There is no volume there -- for anyone -- and few buyers.

The part of that band that's intriguing right now is around $1500-3000 for 55-70" TVs. It's where the highest end 55-inch 1080p sets reside, where the 65-inch flagship plasmas used to sit, where the feature-packed 60 and 65-inch LCDs are, where the upgraded 70-inch LCDs are today. It's not where the fringe models are. But again, nearly no one buys those.
Quote:
That looks a lot more doable considering what Samsung has accomplished in smartphones with unit volumes and screens areas that are dwarfed by their LCD competition.
Again, that's a pretty fake comparison. Samsung has more than enough volume to be far, far down the learning curve. In fact, if you think of the learning curve as asymptotically approaching some limit (a good way to look at it as learning curves don't go down forever!), you understand that for every doubling you eventually set into the "flat part" of the curve where you no longer get the 30% reductions, you start getting less.

Samsung has made well north of 100 million OLED displays using FMM technology on their 4-something-G (maybe 5G? perhaps up to 6?) fabs. They're on the flat part of that curve. They don't need to make 3 billion to get every bit of cost reduction LCD has gotten anymore than LCD needs it.

You've all seen this in LCD to some extent. While it gets cheaper in some ways, the base prices at the bottom end don't fall anymore. Why? Because raw panel making doesn't really get cheaper anymore.

What you see happening now is that larger sizes get cheaper (because the price premiums dwindle with yields), features get cheaper (because they too hit economies of scale and "age out" as premium add ons), and in a mature market the exciting stuff goes away. That's why you have a Vizio which just throws away margins and offers the same set of features as "higher-end" products for less money.

The idea that going from 100MM to 3B radically changes costs just isn't true. Will it help OLED? Sure, to a point. But notably, what will help OLED more is switching backplane tech and ramping oxide backplanes. Of course, that will also make LCD cheaper. It's just that it will again serve to flatten the difference.

Realistically, though, it's pretty likely Samsung is already yielding a ridiculous percentage on mobile-phone screens today. And because they are tiny, losing very little on the waste side.

I'd love to see the actual BOM for these mobile-phone screens assuming a perfect yield, without any fuzzy math on amortization. I'm quite sure the differential between the two technologies is rather small.

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 #11568 of 11573 Unread Today, 08:15 AM
Member
 
janunio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 19
"The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions."
It happened a month ago.
Compare the price of Panasonic 65" AX900 and LG 65" OLED.
Both UHD
janunio is offline  
post #11569 of 11573 Unread Today, 12:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,289
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by janunio View Post
"The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions."
It happened a month ago.
Compare the price of Panasonic 65" AX900 and LG 65" OLED.
Both UHD
Note the plural.

That, and the need for comparison to products with a future. The Korean flagships define a more appropriate threshold.

I mean, if you want to play that game, didn't Bang & Olufsun (sp?) launch a jewel-encrusted 65" LED/LCD earlier this year?
fafrd is online now  
post #11570 of 11573 Unread Today, 02:04 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,477
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 417 Post(s)
Liked: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by janunio View Post
"The question is when OLED televisions can cross over the price point of high-end LCD televisions."
It happened a month ago.
Compare the price of Panasonic 65" AX900 and LG 65" OLED.
Both UHD
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post
Note the plural.

That, and the need for comparison to products with a future. The Korean flagships define a more appropriate threshold.

I mean, if you want to play that game, didn't Bang & Olufsun (sp?) launch a jewel-encrusted 65" LED/LCD earlier this year?
I still think it's noteworthy.

How much is the Panasonic?

Let's make sure we're comparing apples-to-apples here... MSRP to MSRP.

(Incidentally, whatever the Panasonic is, anywhere near the price of the LG is silly.)
dsinger likes this.

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 #11571 of 11573 Unread Today, 03:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 262
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 139 Post(s)
Liked: 67
Aye, Bang & Olufsen to Panasonic is definitely apples to oranges.
sterlingjewel is online now  
post #11572 of 11573 Unread Today, 03:30 PM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Guys, OLED's intermediate material (which is singles Merck people are making) might be dirt cheap ,like 10 dollars per a 55" TV dirt cheap, ( that is, once you have amortized initial R&D costs) and you still can have quite a significant margin at this price point. This is a main reason why Merck got involved with OLED in the first place even though they are the largest LC material producer that has ever managed to grace the face of this increasingly-warming-up Baby Jesus's green earth on which over 99 percent of all lifeforms that have ever existed are now extinct and owing to human-specific ingenuity and resourcefulness soon it's going to be well over 99,9 percent what with the current extinction rate and stuff with its empyrean presence and this is why they shunned the living shyte out of the whole LED thingy that most leed of all the fens, glens and dens across all the meers jumped at. What I mean is back in 2005 they (Merck) had to make a choice between OLED and LED and they went with OLED, because they thought that in the long run OLED can be cheaper than LED.

....
stas3098 is online now  
post #11573 of 11573 Unread Today, 03:46 PM
Senior Member
 
stas3098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Liked: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingjewel View Post
doom gloom doom gloom doom gloom
But what about sloom (the absence of development, akin to stagnation which came to pass during Middle Ages) and toom(empty in bad ways as in "the shelves are toom!") , huh?

....
stas3098 is online now  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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

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