OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 386 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 415Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11551 of 11556 Old Yesterday, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wco81's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 4,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 97
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 online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #11552 of 11556 Old Today, 12:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 769
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 11556 Old Today, 06:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
shinksma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wandering the intertubes, on the way to damnation
Posts: 2,912
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 27
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 11556 Old Today, 08:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Rich Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: St Paul, MN
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Liked: 91
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 11556 Old Today, 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: 31
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.

Last edited by ALMA; Today at 03:02 PM.
ALMA is offline  
post #11556 of 11556 Old Today, 06:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 30,471
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 409 Post(s)
Liked: 695
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  
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