Originally Posted by irkuck
3) Minimum size for OLED to make any impact at the current high-end should have been 65"
Irkuck, really good point. Tricky to do well on 8G motherglass, though. But really good point.
Originally Posted by sytech
But that's the point now, isn't it. You ain't going to be picking up this set at Wal-Mart any time soon. They needed all new fabrication or to heavily modify the existing OLED plants anyway, so how much more could 4K or glare free glass have added? 2 or 3 thousand more? The people that are even considering buying this display have deep pockets and want the best. 5 grand more would not have been an issue. You think they are going to sell anything near 50,000 units the first year anyway? With 4K now starting to hit the market at equally high prices, they will have to convert over in 2-3 years anyway, and will wind up costing them more in the long run.
Honestly, the glare-free glass wouldn't cost much more at all. I mean, yes, it's pricier because it's new and the supplier can get more per square meter for it. But we're not talking thousands of dollars of materials cost, it's probably tens of dollars (which would get multiplied some by the time the product hits retail). As for the 4K, with the LG method, it's also not very expensive....
1) They'd have to put 4x as many transistors on the backplane. That may sound pricey, but the evidence from mobile phones -- where high res displays are becoming very common and pixel density still often easily exceeds what we're talking about here -- is that the increment of doing this is again really small. Probably again tens of dollars. My 4-year-old HP laptop has a significantly higher pixel density than a 4K 55" TV for that matter (it's a 1920 x 1080, 18".)
2) They'd have to pattern 4K color filters instead of 2K color filters. This is almost certainly beyond trivial for them. Everyone is really good at making color filters right now such that yields are almost certainly near 100%. I doubt the materials cost change is in more than single-digit dollars, if that.
So, yes, it would be more expensive to go to 4K and glare free, but we are talking something under $100 at the cost-of-production stage (for LG only). And given that LG offers passive 3D and 4K allows for full resolution passive 3D (whereas 2K does not), it's all the more mystifying they didn't do this. It feels like LG reacted to Samsung without fully thinking through how they could win and then -- because of a production edge -- LG is forcing Samsung to react. But each is missing the bigger picture on a fundamental level. It's unfortunate, but at this point all we can do is at least see the technology reach market at all -- which is a step.
Clearly, 4K is coming, full-res passive is coming, bigger than 55" is here and glare free looks to be something that will be available soon enough. OLED without those things is going into the fight with a short hand. It also explains why a lot of us bought Sharp Elites or VT50s without hesitation. There was never any question a 55" was too small for my recent purchase. So it didn't much matter to me when, from whom and how much. The pricetag is a deterrent, but the size was a dealbreaker. Someone buying in 2015 will probably say the same about 4K, which one hopes is available on OLED before then.