or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 2015: Plasma's final year?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2015: Plasma's final year? - Page 2

post #31 of 149
This would be a shame as plasma's outperform most LCD's.
post #32 of 149
Having the best-of-class TV didn't help Pioneer.
post #33 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post

Having the best-of-class TV didn't help Pioneer.
...exactly, and I have not seem data showing that Sharp has amazing gains with the Elite. My Samsung un60es8000 is almost equal of not better in some areas for half that money.
post #34 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladerunner1959 View Post

...exactly, and I have not seem data showing that Sharp has amazing gains with the Elite. My Samsung un60es8000 is almost equal of not better in some areas for half that money.

I'm confident they haven't sold 50,000 Elites worldwide period. And by taking the Sharp branding off of it, they haven't put a "halo" on the brand either.
post #35 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

I think this is the 3rd or 4th time I've posted this link:
http://panasonic.net/prodisplays/products/152ux1/index.html
Nonetheless ever since they announced they will be closing their P5 plant last year, it is obvious that plasma is entering a slow decline. I don't even have to be smart to make that kind of mathematical certainty forecast back then. Not sure about 2015 as CRT are still being sold next year.
LG and Sammy are likely to stay in the plasma game longer than panny, though it is not their product of focus
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/samsung-lead-panasonic-plasma-201204231782.htm

I live in Hong Kong, and right now Panasonic plasmas are still sold, but a reduced selection of models.
LG and Samsung plasmas are not for sale anymore in Hong Kong.

A sign of things to come?
post #36 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Cut != eliminate for those that are confused.

!= = ≠

...for those that are confused. LOL.......engineering-esque-isms.....

Also,
== = =

Ha.
Edited by tgm1024 - 10/23/12 at 7:42am
post #37 of 149
I didn't realize I could make a ≠.

Sorry. smile.gif
post #38 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeBiker View Post

Having the best-of-class TV didn't help Pioneer.

Didn't help Duesenberg either wink.gif
post #39 of 149
The claims that plasma is dying compared to LCD might be a little strong considering how few affordable LCD panels have the necessary features to beat a decent plasma screen. I don't think it is emphasized enough that an affordably priced plasma will show motion better than all but the highest end LED LCD's. If you're considering buying an LED LCD display with 240 Hz refresh rate, you're not going to regret it, but otherwise, a solid plasma would probably work better for you. I have a hard time believing that in a mere couple years, the entire world will lose its need for a proven panel technology that we already have significant manufacturing capacity for. If OLED prices plunged below LCD, I could see it happening, but that seems even more far fetched.
post #40 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaupersDime View Post

The claims that plasma is dying compared to LCD might be a little strong considering how few affordable LCD panels have the necessary features to beat a decent plasma screen. I don't think it is emphasized enough that an affordably priced plasma will show motion better than all but the highest end LED LCD's. If you're considering buying an LED LCD display with 240 Hz refresh rate, you're not going to regret it, but otherwise, a solid plasma would probably work better for you. I have a hard time believing that in a mere couple years, the entire world will lose its need for a proven panel technology that we already have significant manufacturing capacity for. If OLED prices plunged below LCD, I could see it happening, but that seems even more far fetched.
Quote:
Indeed, LCD TVs remain the only growing TV technology, as OLED TVs are likely to launch late this year, and LCD continues to take market share from both CRT and plasma technologies. LCD TVs are expected to account for about 88% of total TV shipments worldwide in 2012, up from 82% the year before, and are projected to peak around 97% of overall unit demand in 2015. Plasma TV shipments on the other hand will fall to about 5%, declining 26% Y/Y as pricing becomes uncompetitive at key sizes.

http://www.displaysearch.com/cps/rde/xchg/displaysearch/hs.xsl/120710_lcd_tv_forecast_lowered_to_216_units_solid_growth_still_expected.asp

http://www.isuppli.com/Display-Materials-and-Systems/MarketWatch/Pages/US-Flat-Panel-TV-Shipments-Surge-in-Q2.aspx
Edited by Lee Stewart - 10/25/12 at 7:33pm
post #41 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaupersDime View Post

The claims that plasma is dying compared to LCD might be a little strong considering how few affordable LCD panels have the necessary features to beat a decent plasma screen. I don't think it is emphasized enough that an affordably priced plasma will show motion better than all but the highest end LED LCD's. If you're considering buying an LED LCD display with 240 Hz refresh rate, you're not going to regret it, but otherwise, a solid plasma would probably work better for you. I have a hard time believing that in a mere couple years, the entire world will lose its need for a proven panel technology that we already have significant manufacturing capacity for. If OLED prices plunged below LCD, I could see it happening, but that seems even more far fetched.

If 240Hz is close enough to the technology break even point for you, then I think you made the case that (in the short term) it's about 240Hz panels plunging in price, not OLED.
post #42 of 149
It's fascinating that LCD is forecast to hit 97% in 2015, even as plasma begins to approach oblivion. If you assume OLED can take double the "all other share" in 2016, that still caps it at 6% in 2016. Increasing capacity by that amount again each year would put it somewhere between 18 and 30% of the total market by the end of the decade (the range depending on whether you add 3% or 6% per year). I know some people believe a faster rate is plausible, although I have no real idea why they believe that. The market is very approximately 250 million units. To handle 6% of the market, you are looking at 15 million incremental units, or 1.25 million units per month. An 8G fab that could handle 1.25 million units per month would need to be epic in scope...

Consider LGD's recent chatter about producing OLEDs (55" only, so 6 per substrate): "Now we hear that LG Display actually decided to start building a mass production line (called M2) - which will become fully operational in Q1 2014 with a capacity of 32,000 substrates monthly - or about 180,000 55" OLED TV panels in a month (assuming 100% yield, so obviously the real number will be lower)."

Yields will not hit 100% even by later in the decade, but just to make 1.25 million units you'd probably need about 6-7 lines/facilities that could handle that many substrates and you'd have to add that each year. That would allow you to add a mix of sizes -- so long as none were any bigger than 55" -- and satisfy about 6% of the market. The idea that this will happen is not completely far-fetched. The idea that a much faster rate will happen in a TV market that is likely to remain approximately flat for the remainder of the decade? That's approximately laughable.
post #43 of 149
Rogo: Exactly how long can I wait to buy one of the last best plasmas that Panasonic makes before I would be forced to buy LCD that SUCKS because 65-inch OLED simply costs out the a$$?

Will the VT-50 be the best plasma that Panasonic ever produces or will there be any sets produced by them in 2013 or later that are better or just as good?

If the choice is LCD that SUCKS or I can't buy a new TV because OLED costs too much then I guess I'll have to do without a new TV!

Congragulations LCD lovers! You have turned the video universe into a sewer!!!
post #44 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Congratulations LCD lovers! You have turned the video universe into a sewer!!!
The public's preference is simple: bright, colorful, and sharp. That's what LCD provides. I'm a movie fan, so I'd prefer the tech, that enhances that experience at home, but I'm poor, and other superior tech, couldn't possibly be made, to reach me.
post #45 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Rogo: Exactly how long can I wait to buy one of the last best plasmas that Panasonic makes before I would be forced to buy LCD that SUCKS because 65-inch OLED simply costs out the a$$?

IDK, 1-3 years?
Quote:
Will the VT-50 be the best plasma that Panasonic ever produces or will there be any sets produced by them in 2013 or later that are better or just as good?

My guess is the best ever set will come out in 2014. Just a guess, however.
Quote:
If the choice is LCD that SUCKS or I can't buy a new TV because OLED costs too much then I guess I'll have to do without a new TV!

My guess is that by 2016, OLED will be within reach of many videophiles, perhaps even 2015. I also remain optimistic that still better LCDs are coming over the next few years.
post #46 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

My guess is the best ever set will come out in 2014. Just a guess, however.

The rumor seems to be that the 2013 sets will be tweaked versions of 2012, but the 2014 Pannys are supposed to introduce some tech that might be similar to achieving zero mll. That's if it's still in their budget to do such. The neo pdp's high xenon gas level didn't mix ell with pioneer's CEL, so there have also been these rumors for a year or two that they'll get rid of MgO and use another type of material for the CEL. Hopefully they'll build them from the ground up again in 2014.

Panny needs to show a 4k plasma against a 4k lcd just for comparison at CES. People can see what they'll miss out on.
post #47 of 149
Why can' t they just concentrate on OELED and forget plasma, I own a pioneer elit plasma and it has seen better days after ten years of usage but I paid so much that I am keeping it until OLED becomes a reality $3000 for a 65 inches and I am game! The question is 2014, 2015, or 2016!
post #48 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Why can' t they just concentrate on OELED and forget plasma, I own a pioneer elit plasma and it has seen better days after ten years of usage but I paid so much that I am keeping it until OLED becomes a reality $3000 for a 65 inches and I am game! The question is 2014, 2015, or 2016!

Wishing won't make it so. OLED is going to be a long, slow slog of investing billions, trying to work out manufacturing and very slowing ramping up production.
post #49 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Wishing won't make it so. OLED is going to be a long, slow slog of investing billions, trying to work out manufacturing and very slowing ramping up production.

And the CEMs will be in no rush to drop their prices after spending so much on R & D and new Fab plants
post #50 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wse View Post

Why can' t they just concentrate on OELED and forget plasma, I own a pioneer elit plasma and it has seen better days after ten years of usage but I paid so much that I am keeping it until OLED becomes a reality $3000 for a 65 inches and I am game! The question is 2014, 2015, or 2016!

Try 2018 to 2020 for that size at that price
post #51 of 149
Like I said--welcome to the new normal--the video sewer of LCD!
post #52 of 149
Wake up! It's still 2012.
post #53 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Like I said--welcome to the new normal--the video sewer of LCD!
Long shot, not impossible, just implausible for the time being, someone will invent a backlight free LCD panel. Someone will figure how to make the Liquid Crystals illuminate on their own.
post #54 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

And the CEMs will be in no rush to drop their prices after spending so much on R & D and new Fab plants

That's certainly true. Indulge me in some guesswork here, but I wonder about the whole chessboard. Ultimately the retail price is up to the primary (Panasonic, Sony, et. al.) not a Contract manufacturer. The CEM probably has no choice but to follow a standard cost structure, so their panels will be prohibitive in the beginning, but isn't it entirely possible that OLED (and/or Sony's Crystal LED) TV's themselves will be priced at what they perceive to be the longer term sustained revenue, not the immediate? In less cerebral words, gee wiz, wouldn't it be nifty if they sold these things at an initial loss to get that leg up on the market that will make it all up on volume later?

It all depends on the technology/cost curve they're betting on.
post #55 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

That's certainly true. Indulge me in some guesswork here, but I wonder about the whole chessboard. Ultimately the retail price is up to the primary (Panasonic, Sony, et. al.) not a Contract manufacturer. The CEM probably has no choice but to follow a standard cost structure, so their panels will be prohibitive in the beginning, but isn't it entirely possible that OLED (and/or Sony's Crystal LED) TV's themselves will be priced at what they perceive to be the longer term sustained revenue, not the immediate?

No, it really isn't. Even when the Japanese used to do this explicitly, they didn't price at some long-run price, they priced slightly down the learning curve. The problem with pricing too far down the learning curve is that you run into two issues:

1) You lose a lot of money. Say you price down $1,000 below where you ought to be. Over even 1 million units, that's $1 billion. It's simply unrealistic.

2) You stimulate demand you can't even supply.
Quote:

In less cerebral words, gee wiz, wouldn't it be nifty if they sold these things at an initial loss to get that leg up on the market that will make it all up on volume later?
It all depends on the technology/cost curve they're betting on.

What I've been trying to explain for the better part of a year now is that you can't repeal the laws of production economics just because you have a "better mousetrap". You have to price high and sell few initially. But in selling few, you need to move enough such that you move down the learning curve to lower costs. Then you can price lower and sell more for less. Then you can move down the learning curve and do it again.

There is no deus ex machina here that allows you to magically just start producing in quantity and selling as if you're good at making it. We've seen this to be true with not only every variant of flat-panel TV technology, but also with every consumer electronics technology period.

There are absolutely finite rates to both the speed with which you can increase production and the speed with which you can lower costs. Because of this, you cannot reasonably price below cost, except marginally. You can understand this by using my example above and plugging in any other set of numbers you wish. Say your production is ramping up even more quickly than expected such that you will sell 4 million, not 1 million. In that scenario, you couldn't even lower the price $500 below cost because that would cost you $2 billion!

We need to keep in mind that neither Samsung nor LG needs these products to exist. Samsung's TV division is (a) pretty decently profitable and (b) taking share constantly. LG's is slightly profitable and may also be gaining share, but is not losing share at least. Competing OLED production developments from Sony, Panasonic, AUO, etc. are years behind. There is no urgency here and therefore the idea of taking losses is especially odd. Also, there is no secondary purchase to be made and no guarantee of long-term market share. If you are Amazon giving away tablets below cost (and if you include all costs, including support, warranty, shipping, logistics, R&D, they are clearly losing money selling Kindle Fires), you can justify it on the long stream of Amazon-related purchases you are fostering. With an LG OLED, not only will the person not be buying another for 5-10 years, but there is no follow on purchase of apps, videos, etc. to even slightly offset your loss. And even if LG had 80% share in 2014 and had its production curve mastered 3 years ahead of everyone else, by 2017 others will have caught them. The nature of the beast is that the upstream machine makers (the parts that go into the fab) end up supplying the other display fabs so that it doesn't take as long or cost as much for the next guy to come in.

Plus, the next guy might be able to use a technique you can't. For example, Sony and Panasonic might master "printable" OLEDs (I doubt they will, but we've been hearing about them for more than 10 years, so maybe they're finally coming). This means they might match LG on cost despite being 3 years behind. So why should LG go lose $1-5 billion to be first? It simply doesn't make sense.
post #56 of 149
Based on the above scenario Panasonic would make a ton of money if they would just advertise the benefits of plasma and deliver on the those benefits. The manufacturing structure is already in place as well as established R&D departments. Of course the advertising must be extensive and the product must must must deliver the goods (the goods being 100% no possibility of IR, buzzing, green blobs or banding). LCD sold because of advertising. People believed what they read and what they were told.. Always have, always will.
post #57 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

LCD sold because of advertising. People believed what they read and what they were told.. Always have, always will.
They have eyes when purchasing a television. They prefer the artificial unnatural brightness, the crayon saturation vividness, and the surgical sharpness. They're accustom to its aesthetic with their PCs and smaller than HT sized panels. How could plasma compete for the common man's dollar?
post #58 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

No, it really isn't. Even when the Japanese used to do this explicitly, they didn't price at some long-run price, they priced slightly down the learning curve. The problem with pricing too far down the learning curve is that you run into two issues:
1) You lose a lot of money. Say you price down $1,000 below where you ought to be. Over even 1 million units, that's $1 billion. It's simply unrealistic.
2) You stimulate demand you can't even supply.
What I've been trying to explain for the better part of a year now is that you can't repeal the laws of production economics just because you have a "better mousetrap". You have to price high and sell few initially. But in selling few, you need to move enough such that you move down the learning curve to lower costs. Then you can price lower and sell more for less. Then you can move down the learning curve and do it again.
There is no deus ex machina here that allows you to magically just start producing in quantity and selling as if you're good at making it. We've seen this to be true with not only every variant of flat-panel TV technology, but also with every consumer electronics technology period.

Thank you for a well reasoned out reply. I think you establish your points very well. However then, tell me your thoughts on this:

Nintendo To Initially Sell Wii U At A Loss

This is an example of precisely what I was talking about that you say just cannot be done. Here's a quote from within it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Within that link 
"...The Wii U hardware will have a negative impact on Nintendo's profits early after the launch because rather than determining a price based on its manufacturing cost, we selected one that consumers would consider to be reasonable," he told investors yesterday when also discussing the company's fiscal outlook.

This isn't merely betting on next week, it's a bet much further down the road.
post #59 of 149
^Apples versus oranges. I can't think of a video game console in recent memory that hasn't been priced at a loss from the beginning. Rogo already touched on that, though, in that Nintendo hopes to make up for the losses in accessories and software aplenty for its U of which there will be no shortage.
post #60 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by homogenic View Post

They have eyes when purchasing a television. They prefer the artificial unnatural brightness, the crayon saturation vividness, and the surgical sharpness. They're accustom to its aesthetic with their PCs and smaller than HT sized panels. How could plasma compete for the common man's dollar?
They certainly do like the absurdity of the images. And they buy assuming that they won't get tired of some of the effects. I can't get over how jarring the SOE was to me on the UN46C6300 Samsung LED-LCD was that I had briefly. HMOG! I couldn't stand it. But that was nothing compared to the prevalence of black that I just couldn't get rid of without washing out absolutely everything on the display to terrible levels.

Meanwhile, my brother got a free 50" Pana Plasma and as always, I'm amazed at how easy it is to watch. I'm placing a lot of hope in the non-LCD LED displays coming up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › 2015: Plasma's final year?