OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 92

Samsung's strong results help alleviate at least some of the worry that the global economy could impact the timing of a possible pilot Gen 8 fab. Hopefully, an analyst asks about their plans during the Q3 conference call.


Slacker

wow this thread has died since the mods chased rogo off this forum.

I guesss we will just have to wait until 2015 to see if we get 55" oled displays

What? They chased Rogo??? For what and for how long?

Hate to see the guy go. He's always with great information for us "dumb" members. Always looked forward to his posts...

^Totally agree. Mod with severe case of rectocranial impaction.

It wasn't a ban. It was me being pissed off at having 10+ hours of posts wiped out without a warning, a PM, a chance to move them, whatever. I was pissed, I am pissed, and so I pretty much don't post on AVS anymore.

Screw the guys, Rogo! Keep checking out all the other posts and helping us all!

^^^^ agreed! I've always learned a lot from his posts even when I wasn't sure what he was talking about Stay with us.

Would this be because Sony is using inferior power-hungry fluorescent OLED and not PHOLED? At least I think they are, except on the PS Vita.

Only because the Samsung OLED screens are currently using green and blue fluorescent OLED material and only one PHOLED one (red). Green is beginning to be used now and will increase the power efficiency significantly.

http://www.universaldisplay.com/defa...?contentID=605

Some HDTVs consume 500 watts. I'm not sure that's "negligible".

http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/t...umption-chart/

Any power savings is good news, IMO... also means less heat for the A/C system to have to deal with.

Indeed. Gaming has surpassed Hollywood in terms of revenue.

really? please provide references. i would think that revenues from movies and tv shows far surpass the revenues from the gaming industry.

For argument's sake, let's assume you have a plasma that consumes 300 watts calibrated and an LED LCD that consumes 100 watts calibrated (these numbers came from CNET and were the average measured power consumption for each technology). The national average cost of electricity in 2011 has been $0.11/kwh, and the average person watches about 4 hours of TV/day (let's say 6 to be conservative, although I think that is extreme).

This means someone our plasma owner would spend 300*6/1000*30*0.11 = $5.94 on electricity per month to watch TV, whereas our LCD owner would spend 100*6/1000*30*0.11 = $1.98/month. In other words, the plasma owner will spend $3.96 more/month or $47.52 more/year than the LCD owner on electricity. From a cost standpoint, we're talking small potatoes.

Of course, if you're looking to save energy, sure an LED LCD will be more efficient, but I'm not sure how much savings that would generate as compared to other items in the house.

I don't get your point - on the one hand you say OLED can't command a price premium but then you go on to make reference to fact that there are premium HDTVs with current antiquated technologies that sell for 5K (which is likely where OLED sets will be a year or two after initial rampup).

Samsung already announced US $4.8 billion capex for their 8G plant something like February this year, didn't they?

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-n...to-fall-in--11

Agreed - in fact, have a look at this news from two days ago:

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.co...eds-39665.aspx


Wasn't rogo just saying that roll-to-roll wasn't happening anywhere? Why yes he did:


By that I assume he didn't just mean in production fabs, but anywhere. So he's wrong.


Even if I agreed with you, you must certainly appreciate that LCD's time has passed, with its horrible backlighting issues, slow pixel response and slow refresh rate. OLED is the heir apparent and no manufacturer will be investing any more in LCD (we've already seen drops in LCD investment this year). The HDTVs of the future will be OLED, whether that's because consumers see them and love them (likely a part of it) or whether manufactirers acknowledge the benefits of the newer technology and gradually move that way (and in the end see prices of production drop as OLEDs inherent simpler structures pay off).


What will you be saying when you have a projector screen that you can roll up or down for use, but it's not a projector, but rather an OLED display? No daylight issues, takes up zero space, and has all the benefits of OLED including contrast/speed/etc? Something no other tech can even consider doing.


You're completely overlooking the things OLED can do that other displays can't - like be literally as thin as a sheet of paper. Or be made flexible.


Not sure what a "Maybach" is, but it only costs 2-3 times what a Camry costs? Because that's where OLED will be selling (LCDs 1500-5000 and OLEDs 5000-15000), right?


If that argument was anywhere near valid don't you think it would have stopped all the various HDTV display types we've seen (DLP, plasma, LCD, etc)? Because, according to that logic none of those displays were "enough better" that anyone would pay a premium for, so how did they ever get past the loop you describe above? But in fact they DID get past it and did the same way OLED will; by being better enough that some people will be willing to pay the premium to have it and eventually drive the costs down.

Seriously, what?

The current Energy Star maximum is 108 watts. You pick a chart with TVs as old as 3 years old to try to make a point... Against TVs that you won't be able to buy till next year?

My valid point was that LC TVs are not going to be meaningfully eclipsed by OLED TVs. And since Sharp can get 70" TVs into the 108-watt Energy Star budget, I imagine that 55" TVs will comfortably be running around 80 watts by the time you are buying your OLED TVs. If you believe the OLED is going to make more than a negligible difference vs. LCD, you are wrong.

Uh huh, I don't get your point. It's 2011. The only TVs that sell for $5K are hardly "antiquated". They use local dimming LCD technology that has basically just now become readily available. They are out now.

In 3 years -- when you are talking about these OLED being $5K (they ship 1-2 years from now in your theory, they become $5K 1-2 years after that) -- the current premium TVs' technology is available for under $3000. So basically, this amazing picture quality that today people will pay some premium for in small numbers vs. a $3000 TV is then itself $3000. While the $3000 TV moves to $1500. The room left for $5000 TVs? Not much -- if any.

There used to be room for $10,000 TVs. There isn't anymore. It's a moving target. Never stops moving waiting for something that isn't out to get there. The OLED needs to hit $3000 to have a chance to go mainstream, $5000 isn't relevant.

I meant production, not some fantasy demo. There have been dozens of fantasy demos... And the number of OLED production facilities on earth using them? None. The number of them planning to use this technique? None.

You know what that say about assuming.

I acknowledge your opinions on this. They are largely irrelevant and the vast majority of smartphones, tablets, laptops and TVs will be LCD certainly at mid decade and quite possibly at decade's end. Certainly, we can conclude that LCD:OLED ratios for TVs will be a minimum of 10:1 in 2015 and probably much higher.

I will tell you that such a screen has absolutely no chance of reaching the market this decade and that no one is even considering building such a thing. It's a fantasy. Rollable, retractable OLEDs are very much like the flying car: You'll see the demos for a long time, you'll see the viable products... maybe someday. I mean it's nice that you believe the hype, but the reality is that such a product is absolutely nowhere near reality there is no such thing as a screen that can be repeatedly rolled and unrolled, it's not actually clear there is any demand for such a product at the price it would cost to deliver it even if it could be manufactured, there are scores of issues before manufacturing it is even remotely realistic, and the odds are even a decade from now, it won't be realistic or available.

You want to talk to me about OLED tiles that that can be joined together with rear-mounted connectors to form an arbitrarily large display with almost no visible seams? Fine. You want to talk about a single display from an 8G fab within 5-8 years? OK, fine. You want to talk fantasy? I'm sure there are plenty of Lord of the Rings forums for that.

http://games.slashdot.org/story/04/1...Than-Hollywood

They're antiquated in that they're LCDs.

I think the failing on your side of the debate is that you guys are trying to compare OLED using only the form factor LCDs and plasmas can function in, when OLED can and will be much more than that. Try Googling for "Samsung skin" for an idea of what I'm referring to. There are applications that people haven't even come up with yet and all you can imagine about OLED to measure its value is as a square box that sits in your living room.

Not sure how the cost ratio applies. Actually, I'm sure the cost ratio doesn't apply! A Maybach is about 10x the cost of a Camry more or less, but it doesn't matter. Because the ratio is irrelevant. There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal autos (and by the way, I'm not judging them negatively, more power to them). There are some tiny number of people that want snob-appeal TVs. The difference is, production economics support the former, not the latter.


Again, I've explained this probably 1000 times. When there was no flat panel, flat panels were pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When you had a 31" CRT, a large screen was pretty much the most compelling thing ever. When people had SD, HD was pretty much the most compelling thing ever. Guess what? Everyone who wants a flat panel has one. Everyone who wants HD has it. Everyone who wants a large screen has one.

The economics necessary to support a new entrant don't exist anymore. You can't sell $10,000 plasmas anymore. You can't sell $10,000 DLP RPTVs. You can't sell a 40-inch LCD for $8000 (yep, it launched for about that much in 2002). When everything came before, there was an awful lot of greenfield out there to build on. There just isn't anymore.

To build a new market now, you have to quite literally obliterate an existing market. TV sales are not meaningfully growing at all. In fact, TV sales in the upper end are probably going to shrink for most of the 2010s (emerging market sales will grow, but it's unlikely that first-world sales will even remain level in terms of total units sold as the decade progresses).

You, like many here, fundamentally underestimate how difficult it's going to be to maintain the existing market for televisions, let alone introduce an entirely new technology, bring it to scale, drive it down the cost curve, and turn a profit doing so. All this while the first world sits in the longest economic downturn since the 1930s and the performance of existing television technology is so freaking good that professional experts selected a sub $2000 59" Samsung plasma as the best choice on the market in a recent "shootout" of the year's top TVs.

Somehow you think that flexible OLEDs with some hypothetical applications relate to whether or not we'll have OLED TVs. They don't. And all due respect, nonsense like "Samsung skin" has been hyped and touted for a decade. None of it has come to market or even been announced as a product. Roll-to-roll OLED manufacturing, ink-jet printing, flexible substrates, etc. They all date to a time when the Twin Towers cast a shadow over Lower Manhattan. None exist.

There are lots and lots of technologies like this: Things that could be but are not. Holographic storage comes to mind. It's been "just around the corner" since when I plugged in my first hard drive. No viable holographic storage technology has ever come to market and it's unlikely any ever will.

Mankind imagines a lot of things. Mankind produces a few of them. Every generation some of those stick for a combination of reasons. Generally they are not the very best technologies on the market, but for whatever the combination of reasons, they are the ones that stick. The gasoline-powered internal combustion engine (about 30% efficient). The tungsten-filament incandescent light bulb (about 90% of the power goes to heat). VHS (LOL). MP3 (LOLOL). TFT-LCD (mediocre viewing angles, etc. etc.)

If someone can solve the problem of producing a 55" OLED for $3000 when a high-end 55" LCD is still $2500, then great, there exists a chance. If the high-end LCD is $1500, however, the high-end OLED will probably have to be closer to $2000. If the premium is much more than $500, the volumes will never happen. If the volumes never happen, then the experiment is a footnote and that's it. Period.

Now multiply the savings by a billion... and then include the savings that will come from using OLED white lighting consuming far less energy than existing lighting (a far larger market than displays) and the savings in energy consumption and cost will skyrocket.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/8/2/7

Are you really going to suggest you knew about what I posted before it even happened? It's break-through in an area you basically said was fantasy and something OLED fans shouldn't even be hoping for. You said:



That assumes the OLED will come out adding nothing new to the equation but perfect image quality (which I think even you will agree is better than any tech prior to it). What if the new OLED sets are flexible and roll up into your ceiling when not in use? Or are paper thin and can be literally stuck to a wall? Those won't command a premium?


I wouldn't be so sure about that, if I were you... the Luddites never win in the end.

http://www.phonegadgetnews.com/samsu...n-in-2012.html


http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/18/u...id-2011-video/


(cool video of the device at the link above also)

Right - so, according to your logic, once the first HD sets were out any HD set of a different technology that came out after them would have faced the Catch 22 you described and not overcome it, and thus wouldn't have "made it". And the positive differences between OLED and what's out now are massive (IMO) compared to the differences of LCD, plasma, DLP (as differentials to what was out at the time) when they came out.

I know you were just exaggerating for effect, but we actually have a GOOD technology for displays (OLED) that fixes all the things that were wrong about the preceding ones and all you can do is pooh-pooh it as if it doesn't matter when it actually does matter.

"Breakthroughs" are announced all the time. Few actually are, or ever make it to market. How many medical "breakthroughs" have you heard of in your lifetime? How many miracle drugs?

Been around too long not to get a bit jaded. I was hoping to put OLED lighting in my kitchen renovation. Putting up LED instead. I certainly hope some of the hype for OLED comes true. I still hope that one day they really will be produced cheaply. But when my almost 7 year old 61" JVC LCoS RPTV goes, I doubt I'll be able to buy OLED.

Stop. Just stop. There aren't a billion plasma TVs. There isn't OLED white lighting. Regular LED lighting is coming along just fine and has already taken a decade to get this far. By the time your mythic OLED lighting exists, most of the world's lighting will be LED. End of game.

No, I am not exaggerating for effect. At all.

The first generation of HD displays replaced small, bulky, SD sets. The next generation of HD displays was a bit bigger, a bit better. The next generation was a bit bigger, a bit better. Now, bigness is kind of ending in the mainstream (although growing on the "tail) and better is kind of "done" for 95% of people.

Only in Fantasyland is some OLED going to be perceived as much better by a lot of people. Perception is reality. Virtually no one is going to perceive these OLED TVs as better the same way virtually no one sees the value in the Elite LCD. The only reason the Elite LCD is viable is that it comes off the same fab as a TV costing <50% as much. It can sell in tiny volumes. No chance the OLED can both exist and sell in tiny volumes. When you understand that, you'll understand the problem. When you understand the problem, you might understand why solving it is not a given.

If you believe that more than ~5% of the market will pay a 25%+ premium for this "better" display, you are simply wrong.

You lost me.


100% chance that OLED TVs will not be flexible and will not roll up. In 2020, maybe this changes, but we're not talking about 2020. We're talking about 2012-14 Samsungs and LGs. 0% chance those will be flexible or roll out. By 0% chance I mean not 0.00001%, but 0%.

OK, I admit I had no idea what a Samsung skin was, but there is no chance at all Samsung is shipping a phone with a folding screen in 2012. And quite frankly, why would they? It has no utility whatsoever. Some idiotic form factor screen? Yay? And it folds? Why? This is an idea without purpose.

I don't think you know what Luddite means by the way. I'm most definitely not opposed to technological advancement and its impact on labor. I just don't eat up every phony blog post like you do.

I didn't say a billion plasmas.

LED lighting is nearly useless since its a point source only (not planar). It also uses toxic metals, which OLED does not.

OLED white lighting most certainly does exist; it's already for sale in the market, by multiple manufacturers. Here's one:

http://www.oled-info.com/files/Phili...Plus-flyer.pdf

And Universal Display just inked two long-term licensing and materials contracts with two of the biggest Japanese manufacturers, Pioneer and Panasonic, both for OLED white lighting.