Originally Posted by Rich Peterson
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.
Originally Posted by ALMA
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.
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.
Most costs for LCD are construction parts and this waste becomes expensive in long therm.
This is an unsupportable statement that contains no facts.
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?
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.
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?
OLED has never to compete with LCD.
So long as it wants to lose, it most certainly never has to compete.
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!
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.
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.
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.