Here is the story about IBM's research into CRT flat panels:
Does anyone know why this technology wasn't pursued?
Also, direct view CRTs with subpixels are not as good as CRT-s without subpixels (projectors), then CRT projector tech is stuck in 90's , too, projection screens, too.
Where are kickstarter projects with new display technologies, I ask you?
I think Elix is probably right. I haven't been able to find any information on why CRT flat panel technology was not pursued, other than the 12 year old story I posted. If anyone has any more information on this or knows where it might be found, please let me know!
But the last generations of CRT were all "nearly flat" which had a very large radius on the curve. My 20" NF Samsung 1600x1200 monitor around 2004, which was as deep as wide, cost more than my 24" Dell IPS. LCD has become so cheap to make that we'll never have CRT again.
The question at hand is why IBM or another manufacturer didn't follow up 12 years ago.
Could be many reasons it wasn't pursued. Honestly, just seeing how the "slim" and "super slim" CRTs perform at much deeper than 2cm thickness (terrible, where uniformity is concerned), I couldn't imagine how these tubes described in the article would even function. At least, not as a CRT. Nor with any means of deflection as we know it on established CRTs. For all I know the article writer may have been describing plasma screens, confusingly naming it a CRT for its similar technology (sealed spaces, phosphors that glow, etc.). Even if it is in fact a CRT that is being described here, it's also very possible they just couldn't make it work to the kind of quality that a production would require.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s Philips Research Laboratories experimented with a type of thin CRT known as the Zeus display which contained CRT-like functionality in a flat panel display. The devices were demonstrated but never marketed.
Source: "Cathode Ray Tube," Wikipedia.
Apparently, they were able to get the crt display down to around 1cm for any display size.
The things to keep in mind are:
1) 20 years ago
4) never marketed
None of the marketing, financial and technological reasons/obstacles have changed. Keep trying.
Please read the sources I linked to, not just the brief on the wikipedia article. The sources indicate that the technological obstacles had been addressed late 1990s early 2000s. Unless there is some other technological reasons which haven't been mentioned in this thread.
SO that leaves only the fact that they were never marketed. Which could come down to something as simple as business betting on the wrong horse.
An interesting article, but this still does not provide a logical reason for abandoning crt tech, especially considering that crt flat panels could have been produced more cheaply and would have performed better than LCDs.
Industry has to find a way to get people to buy more stuff. What better way to do that then introducing an entirely new technology. Also, people have a fascination with new tech even when it offers no real advantages over existing tech. Both of these factors probably played into the demise of crt.
If you were serious about an in depth answer, with what little information exists in the wild, you would do best to go to the source: IBM and Philips. ******** your way into a telephone interview as a technology blog journalist or something and report back.
Apparently there is something called a hopping electron cathode (HEC) which was used in the Zeus display
More than one technical article I've read thus far has referred to the Zeus display as a type of crt. Seems unlikely that articles published in research/technical journals would make the mistake of using incorrect terminology. I still have more reading to do. Eventually I may call IBM and/or Philips, that's not a bad idea.