OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 463 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 1163Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #13861 of 13974 Old 04-22-2017, 05:43 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
greenland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,584
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 337 Post(s)
Liked: 678
Merck - printed red, green and blue OLED efficiencies are now comparable to vapor-processed ones

https://www.oled-info.com/merck-prin...processed-ones

"Merck is going to discuss its latest soluble OLED material performance at SID DisplayWeek 2017 next month. Merck will detail the printed device efficiencies, voltages, and colors.

According to Merck, the efficiencies of its soluble OLED emitters are now comparable to state-of-the-art vapor-processed devices. Merck will also suggest a move from an evaporated blue common layer device architecture to a printed blue."

.......................................

Only time will tell if their claims are real or just vapor!
Rich Peterson and ChaosCloud like this.
greenland is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #13862 of 13974 Old 04-24-2017, 05:59 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,819
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1622 Post(s)
Liked: 1826
Lifetime is actually far more important than efficiency. You can somewhat game efficiency shortfalls with larger area. But if you haven't got lifetime in the same ballpark, it doesn't matter.
locomo and greenland like this.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #13863 of 13974 Old 04-27-2017, 04:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,159
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Liked: 477
LG Display reported their earnings and stated that they had seen better than expected reception to their new OLED TV's. They expect sales of 300,000 units each in Q1 and Q2 and 500,000 each in Q3 and Q4. The E4 expansion (additional 26,000 Gen 8 substrates) will be completed in Q2.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/406...pt?part=single

It sounds like profitibility in OLED's was better than expected and there is at least the possibility of upside to current capacity plans though that depends on customer demand.
rogo, JasonHa and Vader1 like this.
slacker711 is offline  
 
post #13864 of 13974 Old 04-27-2017, 04:50 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
darinp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,963
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
They expect sales of 300,000 units each in Q1 and Q2 and 500,000 each in Q3 and Q4.
Thanks. This may be somewhere in the thread, but do we have approximate numbers for Q3 and Q4 of 2016? A large jump in volume year over year should mean lower prices, not even counting lowering prices due to what the competition does.

--Darin
darinp is online now  
post #13865 of 13974 Old 04-27-2017, 04:59 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,819
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1622 Post(s)
Liked: 1826
There is no chance in upside to consumer demand at anything resembling current prices, that's for sure. The holiday quarter is far and away the most important of the year. Last year, you could buy an OLED TV for about 30% less than you can now, when sales are slower.

I'm shocked they surprised to the upside at all, except maybe people are willing to overpay now more than LG thought for the newfangled stuff.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #13866 of 13974 Old 04-27-2017, 08:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,159
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Liked: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp View Post
Thanks. This may be somewhere in the thread, but do we have approximate numbers for Q3 and Q4 of 2016? A large jump in volume year over year should mean lower prices, not even counting lowering prices due to what the competition does.

--Darin
I dont think they gave out quarterly units but I think the year was more back-end loaded. I wouldnt be surprised if they shipped 400,000 panels in Q4.
slacker711 is offline  
post #13867 of 13974 Old 04-27-2017, 08:13 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
slacker711's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,159
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 505 Post(s)
Liked: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
There is no chance in upside to consumer demand at anything resembling current prices, that's for sure. The holiday quarter is far and away the most important of the year. Last year, you could buy an OLED TV for about 30% less than you can now, when sales are slower.

I'm shocked they surprised to the upside at all, except maybe people are willing to overpay now more than LG thought for the newfangled stuff.
No arguments from me about pricing and despite what they said about the reception to the 2017 units, the vast majority of end market sales had to be for the 2016 models in Q1. Maybe they are getting good feedback/demand from their non-LG customers?

They kept mentioning upside and I wonder if the fab expansion ramps smoothly if we could see lower prices and more units by Q4.

At this point, I think the market would reward them if they increased capex and ramped OLED capacity faster.
slacker711 is offline  
post #13868 of 13974 Old 04-28-2017, 04:18 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stop making curved screens
Posts: 31,819
Mentioned: 19 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1622 Post(s)
Liked: 1826
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post
No arguments from me about pricing and despite what they said about the reception to the 2017 units, the vast majority of end market sales had to be for the 2016 models in Q1. Maybe they are getting good feedback/demand from their non-LG customers?
Right, I agree there were good sales of 2016 models in Q1.

I also tend to think that, yes, OEM is working well. Especially with LG pricing so high, leaving OEMs in position to make big margins even on small sales. Sony, for one, is obsessed with selling these sub 100K-unit models year after year that have high prices. Must remind them of the good old days of audio or something.
Quote:
They kept mentioning upside and I wonder if the fab expansion ramps smoothly if we could see lower prices and more units by Q4.
One can hope. As a consumer, I feel like this is the lost year.
Quote:
At this point, I think the market would reward them if they increased capex and ramped OLED capacity faster.
Yes, because it would be a stronger indication that OLED is the future in TV. Right now, with Samsung arguing otherwise, it's still not full apparent to Mr. Market.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...
rogo is offline  
post #13869 of 13974 Old 04-29-2017, 01:49 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: S.F.
Posts: 1,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 476
Have to keep in mind that IHS's last sales forecast (late 2016) was reduced by 32% to prior forecast.

2017 - 1.4M
2018 - 2.4M
2019 - 4M
2020 - 5.8M

Q2 actuals are going to be important, a bit too much spitballing thus far.
paranoyd androyd is offline  
post #13870 of 13974 Old 05-01-2017, 01:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Remember when I said that a 42" OLED monitor seems much more likely than a 42" OLED TV since monitors of that size are in the higher-end market segment and therefore almost always have considerably higher price tags than TVs of similar size?

Well, consider that LG is launching a new 42.5" IPS 3840x2160 60Hz monitor with a pre-order price-tag of $700 (it has freesync too).

Of course it's not OLED, but the point is that it's pretty much exactly the kind of product I theorized a few weeks back. Therefore, once LG's new OLED plant is up and running and it's actually economically feasible to make 42" OLED panels, I think the chances for a 42" OLED monitor is now even better.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13871 of 13974 Old 05-01-2017, 02:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Well, consider that LG is launching a new 42.5" IPS 3840x2160 60Hz monitor with a pre-order price-tag of $700 (it has freesync too).

Of course it's not OLED, but the point is that it's pretty much exactly the kind of product I theorized a few weeks back. Therefore, once LG's new OLED plant is up and running and it's actually economically feasible to make 42" OLED panels, I think the chances for a 42" OLED monitor is now even better.
2017 Q2 launch and it's Displayport 1.2 and 8 bit
.
If LG does release a 42" OLED monitor, I hope they do more than essentially a panel swap.
j.p.s is offline  
post #13872 of 13974 Old 05-04-2017, 02:21 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Remember when I said that a 42" OLED monitor seems much more likely than a 42" OLED TV since monitors of that size are in the higher-end market segment and therefore almost always have considerably higher price tags than TVs of similar size? Well, consider that LG is launching a new 42.5" IPS 3840x2160 60Hz monitor with a pre-order price-tag of $700 (it has freesync too). Of course it's not OLED, but the point is that it's pretty much exactly the kind of product I theorized a few weeks back. Therefore, once LG's new OLED plant is up and running and it's actually economically feasible to make 42" OLED panels, I think the chances for a 42" OLED monitor is now even better.
This is not theorizing, it is pipe dreaming. OLED monitor would not make sense for the LG. First issue would be the price, you mention $700 for the new IPS, how much the OLED would have to be for people buying, would it offer any noticeable benefits (remember monitors are used in center view and IPS is very good in the center)? Besides, LG has too limited manuf capabilities to introduce yet another size and they are focused strictly on TV market having enough issues there. Their strategy is simple: cranking up volumes of current TV line and selling them all to eventually establish OLED as an exclusive choice for high-end (meaning anybody with some knowledge and appreciation of PQ would buy OLED even if the price is bit higher). Expansion of LG OLED palette may happen in 2018 but in the direction of sizes bigger than the current 77-inch, sticking to the goal of eliminating LCD from the high-end.
irkuck is offline  
post #13873 of 13974 Old 05-04-2017, 03:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
This is not theorizing, it is pipe dreaming.
The entire reason I even made my post was because there were people hypothesizing a few pages back about LG's being able to make 42" OLED panels at their new OLED plant, at which point I mentioned that 42" monitors typically go for considerably higher prices (easily two to three times) than 42" TVs, so therefore it seems much more likely that LG would try to sell a 42" OLED monitor than a 42" OLED TV.

That's all - nothing more, nothing less.


Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
OLED monitor would not make sense for the LG.
I'm pretty sure that around a year ago over quite a few pages in this very thread, you, me, and some other people completely beat to death the subject of whether OLED makes sense in monitors, laptops, etc, or not.

Therefore, it seems redundant to re-debate that very subject yet again.

Last edited by NintendoManiac64; 05-04-2017 at 03:11 AM.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13874 of 13974 Old 05-06-2017, 08:14 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
The entire reason I even made my post was because there were people hypothesizing a few pages back about LG's being able to make 42" OLED panels at their new OLED plant, at which point I mentioned that 42" monitors typically go for considerably higher prices (easily two to three times) than 42" TVs, so therefore it seems much more likely that LG would try to sell a 42" OLED monitor than a 42" OLED TV.
Equally well one could speculate LG will be gluing their 42" OELD panels to the doors of their new line of 4K fridges. Logic tells however LG won't make any 42" OLED panels. To survive and succeed with its OLED LG must keep iron focus on high-end TV segment to establish OLED as the only reasonable choice for those concerned about PQ. This is very tricky game of expanding manufacturing, lowering the prices while not going into the red due to intense pressure from the LCD. Note for example vicious strategy of product naming by the competitor QLED. This is deliberateely done for blurring the lines and making OLED almost undistinguishable in the eyes of consumers.
irkuck is offline  
post #13875 of 13974 Old 05-06-2017, 05:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post
Very few people are going to purchase expensive small TV sets. They are either going to purchase cheap LCD ones, because that is all they can afford, or rely on their phones and tablets instead, and those with deep pockets want to purchase large TV sets, not small ones.
And this is why I mentioned the monitor market, where $700 for a higher-end 42" display is actually very normal and $1000+ is common for any sort of really high-end monitor.


You only need to look at the people that are buying Dell's 30" OLED monitor at $3500, and not only is it only 60Hz but it lacks HDR and doesn't even have a square pixel grid - three thing that aren't an issue for LG.

Last edited by NintendoManiac64; 05-06-2017 at 09:46 PM.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13876 of 13974 Old 05-06-2017, 07:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Wizziwig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 2,476
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1218 Post(s)
Liked: 863
I'm not entirely sure who the target market is for that Dell OLED. Color accuracy is crap and most of the people who bought them on other forums have already returned them. Instead of delaying it for a year, they probably should have just canceled production. I wonder if they are just clearing inventory at this point. Something released today at this price point needed to have HDR, 120Hz inputs, and reference-grade color for photo/video editing.

Last edited by Wizziwig; 05-07-2017 at 11:00 AM.
Wizziwig is offline  
post #13877 of 13974 Old 05-07-2017, 05:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
And this is why I mentioned the monitor market, where $700 for a higher-end 42" display is actually very normal and $1000+ is common for any sort of really high-end monitor. You only need to look at the people that are buying Dell's 30" OLED monitor at $3500, and not only is it only 60Hz but it lacks HDR and doesn't even have a square pixel grid - three thing that aren't an issue for LG.
There are Sony 30" OLED monitors selling for 20G or something and people buying them but it means nothing from the point of LG strategy. Their focues is high-end TV market and they are balancing on line to expand their position there not diving into reds. Going into niches like 42" monitors would be crazy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post
Very few people are going to purchase expensive small TV sets. They are either going to purchase cheap LCD ones, because that is all they can afford, or rely on their phones and tablets instead, and those with deep pockets want to purchase large TV sets, not small ones.
And those among them which are aware about PQ will buy OLEDs. LG is trying hard to make OLED the only reasonable choice for them but LCD is not at a totally lost position yet due to the HDR. The current situation is 'if you prefer watching full glory of supernova explosions in sunny daylight buy pumped up LCD, if you prefer watching black hole in darkness buy OLED'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizziwig View Post
I'm not entirely sure who the target market is more that Dell OLED. Color accuracy is crap and most of the people who bought them on other forums have already returned them. Instead of delaying it for a year, they probably should have just canceled production. I wonder if they are just clearing inventory at this point. Something released today at this price point needed to have HDR, 120Hz inputs, and reference-grade color for photo/video editing.
This means Samsung OLED tech is not ready for bigger size panels.
irkuck is offline  
post #13878 of 13974 Old 05-07-2017, 02:11 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
[LG's] focus is high-end TV market and they are balancing on line to expand their position there not diving into reds. Going into niches like 42" monitors would be crazy.
Maybe, maybe not. It honestly doesn't matter since it's kind of irrelevant to my entire point:

If for whatever reason, LG were to decide to make medium-sized OLED panels, then they'd be much better off using such panels in monitors than TVs due to much higher profit margins.

That is all. It may seem like a really obvious statement to someone like myself (and maybe to you as well?), but as someone that is a computer geek first and a home theater enthusiast second, I find that many AVSers seem to live in a bit of an "home theater bubble" and aren't all that aware of things like display markets outside of the traditional home theater industry.
Gris and nodixe like this.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13879 of 13974 Old 05-08-2017, 05:07 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Maybe, maybe not. It honestly doesn't matter since it's kind of irrelevant to my entire point:
If for whatever reason, LG were to decide to make medium-sized OLED panels, then they'd be much better off using such panels in monitors than TVs due to much higher profit margins. That is all. It may seem like a really obvious statement to someone like myself (and maybe to you as well?), but as someone that is a computer geek first and a home theater enthusiast second, I find that many AVSers seem to live in a bit of an "home theater bubble" and aren't all that aware of things like display markets outside of the traditional home theater industry.
You seem to be fixated on OLED in monitors. OLED offers little in monitors, its excellent viewing angle is of no signifance in the monitor viewing scenario and black level too since rarely monitors are used in darkness. You probably have in mind gaming applications played on big monitors (42 inch). In this case one can ask why not got full size and buy readily available 55 inch OLED TV? For applications which are strictly monitor usage 42 inch is too big from ergonomic reasons. I am using 32 inch 4K monitor lowered to the desk level. In this position I have comfortable head position looking bit down which is best to avoid neck pains. 42 incher is too big for such a comfort.

Adding to the above, OLED offers something in monitors but in ultra high-end applications of making professional photography and video. For movie productions, ultimate display PQ is needed and this is why Sony sells in this segment 20G OLED monitors.
irkuck is offline  
post #13880 of 13974 Old 05-08-2017, 11:17 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Anyone knows if any manufacturer is going to release 50" or smaller OLEDs any time soon?

Pioneer Elite LX-101
B&W DM 603 S2
B&W CC 6 S2
B&W ASW608
sshamim is offline  
post #13881 of 13974 Old 05-08-2017, 12:53 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
You seem to be fixated on OLED in monitors.
I'm fixated on OLED in monitors simply because 55" is too large for my PC setup - I would have to put it on the other side of the room otherwise, at which point I'd have to use 200% DPI scaling which starts to defeat the purpose of 4k.

My use-case is mixed - photos, video, gaming, and even some digital arts; I'm also a massive night-owl so I prefer using light-colored text on black backgrounds (a habit I developed with CRTs), and that just doesn't work well on LCDs.

One thing I love though is native 100Hz and 120Hz input, and there's no way I can sacrifice those (I'm also one of those heretics that like framerate interpolation).



There's clearly a market for a high-end medium-sized consumer OLED monitor considering existence of the following forum thread with over 500 posts in the last month alone:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1627849/o...z-dell-up3017q
ChaosCloud likes this.

Last edited by NintendoManiac64; 05-08-2017 at 03:28 PM.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13882 of 13974 Old 05-09-2017, 06:01 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
There's clearly a market for a high-end medium-sized consumer OLED monitor considering existence of the following forum thread with over 500 posts in the last month alone: http://www.overclock.net/t/1627849/oled-4k-30-60-hz-dell-up3017q
Ah, those ultrahardcore graphics people are the market? This is too shallow niche to make monitors in volumes, or, in fact Dell was also be thinking of addressing them with the 3 grands 30" OLED and you would not like to pay 5 grands for the 42" OLED, right? The market for OLED monitors would exist if one could produce for the price close to high-end LCD. This is impossible since there are no manufacturing capabilities and if one builds them the product cost can not be close to the LCD due to the investment outlay. This is very nasty chickenandegg type of problem. One should admire mastery of LG of pushing into the big size high-end TV sets by dynamically building up manufacturing and reducing prices. On this road, LG can not allow to loose its focus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sshamim View Post
Anyone knows if any manufacturer is going to release 50" or smaller OLEDs any time soon?
They won't be coming since there is no way to make any money in this segment. The only reasonable markets for OLEDs are phones and big size TVs. Manufacturers see much more promise in automotive displays than in mid size OLEDs.

Last edited by irkuck; 05-09-2017 at 06:05 AM.
irkuck is offline  
post #13883 of 13974 Old 05-09-2017, 01:08 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Ah, those ultrahardcore graphics people are the market? This is too shallow niche to make monitors in volumes, or, in fact Dell was also be thinking of addressing them with the 3 grands 30" OLED and you would not like to pay 5 grands for the 42" OLED, right? The market for OLED monitors would exist if one could produce for the price close to high-end LCD. This is impossible since there are no manufacturing capabilities and if one builds them the product cost can not be close to the LCD due to the investment outlay.
Few things here.

1. If LG can sell a 55" OLED TV for $1500, and we know that larger size = higher cost (see: 55" vs 65" vs 77" OLED), then there's no reason that a 42" OLED display couldn't cost around $1000

2. It's already been stated several pages back that, with LG's upcoming OLED plant, should be completely feasible to manufacture 42" panels

3. The $1000 market for 42" monitors is obviously way bigger than the $1000 market for 42" TVs.

4. A 42" OLED monitor with 4k, HDR, and 120Hz (three things LG's TVs already do) at a $1000 price-point would be able to hit multiple market segments and not just a single niche - the high-end gamer, the videophile, and the photo/video professional with a reasonable budget. And monitors of course can double as a tunerless "dumb" TVs - LG just has to throw in a basic remote as well.
videobruce likes this.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13884 of 13974 Old 05-10-2017, 12:45 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: S.F.
Posts: 1,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 476
Biggest untapped market is 12"-17" panels for tablets and notebooks/convertibles.

The few devices in that range that currently offer an OLED panel option are typically only ~$200 more than the standard LCD option.

Unfortunately, it's probably going to take Apple to adopt OLED across their iPad and macbook lines for OLED to really take off in this segment. They eventually will of course, but how long is the question. A few PC models have been nobly trying to lead the way with OLED, but they simply don't have the marketing outreach of an Apple or Samsung.
paranoyd androyd is offline  
post #13885 of 13974 Old 05-10-2017, 03:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Few things here.

1. If LG can sell a 55" OLED TV for $1500, and we know that larger size = higher cost (see: 55" vs 65" vs 77" OLED), then there's no reason that a 42" OLED display couldn't cost around $1000
2. It's already been stated several pages back that, with LG's upcoming OLED plant, should be completely feasible to manufacture 42" panels
3. The $1000 market for 42" monitors is obviously way bigger than the $1000 market for 42" TVs.
4. A 42" OLED monitor with 4k, HDR, and 120Hz (three things LG's TVs already do) at a $1000 price-point would be able to hit multiple market segments and not just a single niche - the high-end gamer, the videophile, and the photo/video professional with a reasonable budget. And monitors of course can double as a tunerless "dumb" TVs - LG just has to throw in a basic remote as well.
Continuing your line of thought one could say LG should be able shjoot from the hip and extinguish LCD from the monitor market and then open serial fire killing the LCD completely. 42" monitors are overall a niche since they do not fit well to the desktop standard scenario. Sure, there are some for which it would be good but then their requirements are go up like you mention plus calibration. OLED has still some issues with critical aspects of PQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoyd androyd View Post
Biggest untapped market is 12"-17" panels for tablets and notebooks/convertibles.
The few devices in that range that currently offer an OLED panel option are typically only ~$200 more than the standard LCD option.
Unfortunately, it's probably going to take Apple to adopt OLED across their iPad and macbook lines for OLED to really take off in this segment. They eventually will of course, but how long is the question. A few PC models have been nobly trying to lead the way with OLED, but they simply don't have the marketing outreach of an Apple or Samsung.
Samsung is pushing their small OLEDs for years, technology is ready but the barrier is the price several times higher than LCD. Apple adopting it will only mean OLED is making inroads into high-end but one should not forget Apple is marginal in the overall market. Expanding OLED down the cost ladder will require major decrease in prices. Tablets and notebooks are even much tougher from this point of view.
Note the news OLED manufacturers see automotive as most promising and that is due to panel flexibility and robustness.
irkuck is offline  
post #13886 of 13974 Old 05-10-2017, 09:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
NintendoManiac64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,834
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 919 Post(s)
Liked: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoyd androyd View Post
Biggest untapped market is 12"-17" panels for tablets and notebooks/convertibles.
This is doublely true when one considers that WOLED may in fact have less power consumption displaying white than Samsung's RGB OLED, and PC applications and web sites have a ton of white (which is RGB OLED's worst-case scenario power-wise).


Consider that WOLED is made of a yellow and blue, two elements, which together make white (presumably the white subpixel is unfiltered).

RGB OLED is made of red, green, and blue elements, one per subpixel. White however would require all three elements, and last I checked, 3 > 2.


Now of course displaying something like pure red, pure green, or pure blue on RGB OLED would use less power than WOLED, but those colors are far less common than white. Similarly, the worst-case scenario colors for WOLED (yellow, cyan, or magenta) are also much less common, so they should have much less of an effect on power than white on RGB OLED would.
paranoyd androyd likes this.

Last edited by NintendoManiac64; 05-10-2017 at 09:07 PM.
NintendoManiac64 is offline  
post #13887 of 13974 Old 05-10-2017, 10:47 PM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: S.F.
Posts: 1,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
Samsung is pushing their small OLEDs for years, technology is ready but the barrier is the price several times higher than LCD. Apple adopting it will only mean OLED is making inroads into high-end but one should not forget Apple is marginal in the overall market. Expanding OLED down the cost ladder will require major decrease in prices. Tablets and notebooks are even much tougher from this point of view. Note the news OLED manufacturers see automotive as most promising and that is due to panel flexibility and robustness.
It's not several times higher at this size range. You can upgrade to an OLED panel on various 12"-14" devices right now for a mere ~$200 extra. That's nothing. And as for Apple's adoption and what that would mean for the high-end, aren't we only primarily concerned about the high-end here anyway? While I'm not an Apple consumer, my point is that they could at least serve as a 'good soldier' towards quicker adoption for OLED as a whole. There's always going to be demand for high-end notebooks/convertibles and many such consumers are/would be excited to benefit from an OLED option. Overall, in the short to medium term, OLED enthusiasts shouldn't really be concerned about when OLED will reach the level of the 'disposable' notebook.

As for Samsung, yes, they've used OLED off and on in their tablets dating back to 2011, and currently offer the 12" OLED Samsung Galaxy Book to try and compete with the MS Surface Book. However, they've never offered an OLED option on any of their own previously branded notebooks. Whereas, Samsung Display has/does supply OLED panels to other PC OEMs like Lenovo and HP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
This is doublely true when one considers that WOLED may in fact have less power consumption displaying white than Samsung's RGB OLED, and PC applications and web sites have a ton of white (which is RGB OLED's worst-case scenario power-wise).

Consider that WOLED is made of a yellow and blue, two elements, which together make white (presumably the white subpixel is unfiltered).

RGB OLED is made of red, green, and blue elements, one per subpixel. White however would require all three elements, and last I checked, 3 > 2.

Now of course displaying something like pure red, pure green, or pure blue on RGB OLED would use less power than WOLED, but those colors are far less common than white. Similarly, the worst-case scenario colors for WOLED (yellow, cyan, or magenta) are also much less common, so they should have much less of an effect on power than white on RGB OLED would.
Yes, excellent points about WOLED for the entire 5"-17" range, as Samsung's RGB OLEDs in this segment have had their fair share of QC issues.

LG Display will apparently be the back-up supplier for Apple's upcoming 5.1/5.2" OLED iPhone. And according to the latest that I've read, LG Display has a good chance of being the main supplier for Google's upcoming Pixel 2 line. So there's already competition in the 5"-17" range for phone, phablet, tablet, notebooks/convertible. (And the Japanese and Chinese will also soon be manufacturing small OLED panels as well (and most likely for TV too).
paranoyd androyd is offline  
post #13888 of 13974 Old 05-10-2017, 11:57 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 271 Post(s)
Liked: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoyd androyd View Post
It's not several times higher at this size range. You can upgrade to an OLED panel on various 12"-14" devices right now for a mere ~$200 extra. That's nothing.
I had in mind smartphone displays when telling the OLED cost is several times higher. Saying that 200 bucks extra is nothing you are far away from the reality of producing stuff. This is huge cost when manufacturers are fighting for every buck or even cents in their component costs. It mean OLED can be used only in very high end devices and it is there one can see them. another issue is the benefit
OLED brings in those 12-14 inch devices, or rather lack of them, while some issues are reported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paranoyd androyd View Post
And as for Apple's adoption and what that would mean for the high-end, aren't we only primarily concerned about the high-end here anyway? While I'm not an Apple consumer, my point is that they could at least serve as a 'good soldier' towards quicker adoption for OLED as a whole. There's always going to be demand for high-end notebooks/convertibles and many such consumers are/would be excited to benefit from an OLED option. Overall, in the short to medium term, OLED enthusiasts shouldn't really be concerned about when OLED will reach the level of the 'disposable' notebook. As for Samsung, yes, they've used OLED off and on in their tablets dating back to 2011, and currently offer the 12" OLED Samsung Galaxy Book to try and compete with the MS Surface Book. However, they've never offered an OLED option on any of their own previously branded notebooks. Whereas, Samsung Display has/does supply OLED panels to other PC OEMs like Lenovo and HP.
High-end means small market niche while the discussion is concerned with expansion of OLED reach. Such expansion requires signifcatn lowering of the OLED prices close to the LCD level. Apple adopting OLED is mere expansion in the high-end area which is obviously good but not meaning general expansion of OLED. It most likely signifies progress that Apple OLED is refined so much that it is absolutely prefect display without any issues whatsoever and shocking PQ. That is excellent but the road to get prices close to the LCD level is not getting shorter by this.
irkuck is offline  
post #13889 of 13974 Old 05-11-2017, 12:36 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: S.F.
Posts: 1,069
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Liked: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
I had in mind smartphone displays when telling the OLED cost is several times higher. Saying that 200 bucks extra is nothing you are far away from the reality of producing stuff. This is huge cost when manufacturers are fighting for every buck or even cents in their component costs. It mean OLED can be used only in very high end devices and it is there one can see them. another issue is the benefit OLED brings in those 12-14 inch devices, or rather lack of them, while some issues are reported.
The additional $200 example is for consumers in the 12"-14" device range, not smartphones, so I think you misunderstood. But if you want to stick to a discussion about smartphone OLED vs. 12-17" OLED devices, that's ok too. However, questioning the "benefit" of OLED at 12"-17" vs. smartphone size doesn't make any sense, since the benefits and enjoyment of OLED will always be greater at larger sizes. So, from that perspective, OLED in smartphones really serves the least beneficial purpose for viewing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
High-end means small market niche while the discussion is concerned with expansion of OLED reach. Such expansion requires signifcatn lowering of the OLED prices close to the LCD level. Apple adopting OLED is mere expansion in the high-end area which is obviously good but not meaning general expansion of OLED. It most likely signifies progress that Apple OLED is refined so much that it is absolutely prefect display without any issues whatsoever and shocking PQ. That is excellent but the road to get prices close to the LCD level is not getting shorter by this.
I'm quite familiar with the discussion, thanks. It's just hard to understand why you continue telling everyone that there's essentially no "benefit" or demand for OLED between smartphone and TV sizes, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. If you honestly think that LCD is going to continue occupying the enormous space between 6" and 55" panel sizes, you're sorely mistaken. Everything trickles down, including BOM costs and consumer prices, so it is most critical that OLED first makes an impact at the high-end level for the greater purpose of OLED adoption on the whole. Not too sure how anyone can disagree with that.
nodixe likes this.
paranoyd androyd is offline  
post #13890 of 13974 Old 05-11-2017, 01:31 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Wetumpka, AL
Posts: 17,222
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1559 Post(s)
Liked: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by NintendoManiac64 View Post
Few things here.

1. If LG can sell a 55" OLED TV for $1500, and we know that larger size = higher cost (see: 55" vs 65" vs 77" OLED), then there's no reason that a 42" OLED display couldn't cost around $1000
As a retired accountant, you've got me curious about this.

Do you have a breakdown of fixed versus variable cost for a 55" OLED display?

I've wondered for a while how much direct materials go into these displays as a part of total cost. Got to recover that plant and R&D cost not to speak of ongoing overhead cost.

Klein K-10A, CR250, i1D3, i1Pro2, Calman Enthusiast, LG 65B6P, Panasonic 65VT50, and a great wife that puts up with all this.:)
JimP is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Led Hdtv , Lg , Oled Tv , oled wireless speakers , Plasma Hdtv , 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