Originally Posted by tgm1024
Besides, is power really all that huge a deal any longer? Certainly not for OLED TVs unless they're the jumbotrons.
Power does matter. 250 million TVs a year that are run for 2,000 hours on average that use 10 watts less apiece matters. But... only if the cost to get lower power is reasonable.
BTW, there were some rumblings here and there in this thread previously about iridium prices and that it might be running out (it's a non-renewable resource afterall). I'm really not sure, but perhaps part of this was fueled by the absurd price bump experienced a few years ago?
All platinum group metals experience this periodically because all are rare and commodities swing wildly. I'm not saying we shouldn't use things like iridium, it's hard tho to get excited about things that require it. The whole move now in solar panels, for example, is to find even more cheap, common materials to replace the few pricey things still being used.
Originally Posted by ynotgoal
LG Display adjusted their OLED TV expectations from mostly 55" TVs to now 40% of the sets will be 65" or 77" models. This makes sense given the higher demand for the 65" and it sounds like we will actually see 77" models at better pricing next year. Of course, it means a lower total volume of sets produced in order to keep the area the same... more than 1 million mixture of 55", 65" and 77" sets next year from 1.5 million 55" previously. They also said 55" yields are now at the same level as LCD and expect 65" and 77" to reach that level next year. Edit: LG Display also said they would be adding new customers next year. Sharp has been mentioned for the first time.
That sounds like great news, tbh. I think the bet of "really expensive 55 inch" TVs was always far bigger than that segment is. In other words, they wanted to sell 100+% of the $1500 55-inch segment way too soon -- and can't yet sell a $1000 55-inch OLED.
So, yes, I'd trade volume for a better size mix for sure. Incidentally, what's the source of all this? (I'm not doubting you at all, just curious.)
a) That particular material has a short lifetime because it was run 10 times brighter than would be used in TVs. They have an architecture using this very efficient material in a wrgb layout which produces a total lifetime of 50,000 hours. It remains to be seen when it will be adopted for use in TVs.
b) All red and green materials today use iridium
50,000 hours sounds good, especially if 30,000 hours (8 years at obscene usage) is only down to, say, 80% max brightness.
See my point above about iridium. For decades now, we've tried to reduce platinum use in catalytic converters. The race is always "less of rare, expensive stuff". The new Chevy Volt uses far less "rare earths" (which actually aren't rare like platinum at all, just not as common as iron, aluminum, tin, etc.) than the previous one for cost reasons. This isn't a bunch of "green nonsense" either. It's about making things more affordable and mass produceable.
OLED material has a long way to go before it meets that standard.