or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread - Page 272

post #8131 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Norseman View Post

Screw the EU's stupid 'power usage requirements' then I say! wink.gif

Me too. The earth does not need saving. It will go on fine without us tongue.gif

- Rich
post #8132 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post


You really think it is impossible to develop the methods to get decent yields with a 26,000 substrate a month fab? Why?

I never said any such thing.

What I was trying to get across (apparently not very clearly), is that you need high volume to drive costs down and you need high yields to drive volumes. You can't drive costs down on low volumes. Nor will you likely drive yields up much on low volumes, I'm sorry to say. You can't just wish this stuff into being true and you can't just tweak processes on the margin and make it true.

The problem here is that the desire to ramp production of OLED is not like the production ramp of other technologies that came before it, like LCDs (or PDPs) or semiconductor products. When you have something that truly disrupts a market, there is an almost automatic virtuous cycle of demand --> pushed production --> improved yields --> lower prices --> even more demand --> even more production --> even further yield improvements --> even lower prices --> etc. etc.

OLED has no automatic demand at any price level above the top end of the LCD market. The demand for OLED against the best LCDs if OLED is priced even $1000 more is infinitesimal. It does not drive the cycle shown above.

The reason for this is OLED is simply not disruptive for televisions. It improves contrast in ways most people (a) won't notice (b) won't experience due to watching with the the lights on (c) won't care. It may marginally improve color that is already reproduced with near-perfect accuracy by existing sets. It improves viewing angles (though not with curved sets!!!!!!!) over LCD, yet existing LCD viewing angles have not stopped that technology from marching toward a 95+% share of the TV market. It is currently incapable of producing industry-leading resolution. It is not the brightest TV you can buy. It does not deal any better with ambient light than LCD (perhaps it is actually worse). It's not currently clear it provides superior power consumption, but with LCDs sporting $8-12 Energy Guide stickers, this will not matter to consumers.

We heard patently absurd arguments here 2 years ago that people would value OLED TVs because they weighed less as if anyone is moving their TV around! We heard the thinness would matter, yet manufacturers have already decided that curving the screen and making it have a deeper profile than existing sets is more interesting to consumers than taking advantage of the thinness.

The fundamental problem here is that the technology as currently constituted is simply not a disruption. We can look at that across two different dimensions.

1) If the features were disruptive, the price could easily be higher. Consider the market for a touchscreen phone that accesses the internet with a familiar browser and allows access to thousands of well-crafted apps in a world where the majority of cell phones make and receive calls and have a 1-3 line screen that displays phone numbers and lets you send a text message, albeit awkwardly. In that world, charging more money for the phone and the related service is hardly out of the question, yet[ many will still question whether the new technology is appealing.

When flat panels were new, their extreme cost was almost entirely irrelevant to early adoption. There were people who needed them for embedded computing (laptops), small spaces (wall-mounted TVs), etc. They didn't even need to be good to be gigantically successful because some people would pay any reasonable price to obtain them. Now that they have them, however, (and can replace them), the original anchoring price is gone as relevant.

This is why everyone who believes "Well plasmas used to cost $25,000 so it's OK OLEDs are $9000" is wrong. There was a market for the first one and yet there is simply not for the second one. (When I say "there is not a market", I don't mean sales are literally zero. But they are a number that approaches zero.) There are two problems here that are obvious and subtle. First, it should be clear than when the Pioneer 50-inch plasma was $20,000, if you needed a 50 inch flatscreen, the only price on earth was $20,000. Today, of course, you can buy one for ~$500. Second, when the price was $20,000 and there was no competition, nothing anchored expectations around cost. Now, that $500 TV does. It limits the maximum you can charge for the 50-inch TV, no matter how good it is (unless it was truly novel).

2) If there was a disruption in manufacturing that made the technology cheaper, it would not even need to be better. In fact, in classic disruption theory the new thing is often worse -- at least initially -- and uses cheapness/ease of availability/etc. to make its way in the world. Consider, for example, a world where digital cameras allow you to take 100s of photos at no marginal cost and then print only the good ones -- or print none at all!

One of the great OLED myths is that "it's inherently cheaper" to produce. This nonsense is based on a facile examination of the production processes of the two technologies that shows "fewer steps are required to make OLEDs than LCDs". The problem with these kinds of analyses is that they ignore countless real world examples of products that don't follow the logic. The steps required to make an Intel microprocessor are quite complex and numerous. Yet you can produce a wafer full of dozens of them for a few dollars apiece. The steps required to produce a vinyl shutter for a 24 x 36 window are quite a bit less complex, far less proprietary than Intel's processes (more competitors), and not especially precise. Yet the build cost is far higher and if, say, we make the windows 48 x 72, there is no consumer Intel chip that costs more than that shutter... If we switched to wood for the shutter, well, wow....

A significant reason for the different is volume, but that hardly accounts for all the difference. There are millions of shutters produced around the world each year such that most volume efficiencies should have been achieved. But shutters simply cost more than computer chips, despite being far less complex.

So when we talk about OLED, we need to understand that in the real world, it's more expensive to make than LCD. It's certainly possible that can change. Printing OLEDs in theory can not only save steps, but also cut waste, cut rework, increase yield, improve throughput and result in more uniform displays than LCD offers. In the meantime, we are left with a world where printing OLEDs is an idea, not a reality. The two existing OLED production methods are far less efficient than the worst LCD fab on earth. Samsung's method is simply not scaleable. Samsung's actions (and words) establish this, though it's a them I (and others) have repeated for years. You cannot slide a small screen around a huge substrate and produce a zero-pixel seam with any combination of repeatability and throughput. Time will not change this. It's possible a larger screen will be invented if a new material is developed that is rigid over a larger area, though that, too, is a fraught methodology.

LG's method uses no pixels so it simply relies on depositing three layers of OLED material as a vapor, in succession, with enough evenness to make for consistent performance. It's possible this technique will be mastered, though it seems improbable it will ever be fast. Similarly, because the LG OLED uses a color filter and a TFT backplane, the rest of the design is basically one of their LCDs. So to believe it will ever be cheaper, you have to believe the vapor deposition of the OLED material will eventually beat out the sputtering of the LC material into the pixel grid. This seems improbable. (Technically, there are other differing steps between the two technologies, but they generally don't favor OLED vs. LCD in this case. They tend to favor OLED when you don't need to do three slow, separate depositions and don't also need to manufacture color filters and add them to the mix.)

So, what I believe is that a disruption on either manufacture or user experience hasn't been produced. If/when it is, OLED will likely take over.

Until then, pushing volumes is going to be like pushing on a string. Every cost reduction will need to be passed along to consumers almost in its entirety to drive prices down anywhere near enough to allow for the next tier of demand to form. But these will be very, very small tiers and thus it is a tough slog to reach the volumes needed to perfect production. An easier strategy would be to drop prices to $4000 right now for a 55-inch set. LG would doubtless lose money, but it would drive OLED ahead 2-3 years for every calendar year and give it a huge leg up on competitors. LG is poorly capitalized, however, and seems unlikely to try this strategy. In a world where it wasn't Korean, it might be well served to partner with someone like Apple, take $10 billion, and engage in just this kind of "reckless" strategy.
post #8133 of 9447
Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.

Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.

PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?

Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.
post #8134 of 9447
Rogo: One of your very best thought pieces. Thinking about starting an investment letter?
post #8135 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post


Originally Posted by RichB

Actually, 4K prematurely derailed Panasonic plasma, and probably Samsung and LG too (next year).
Panasonic decided that 4K Plasma could not be produced price competitive and within EU power usage requirements.
- Rich

MN - Screw the EU's stupid 'power usage requirements' then I say!

Me too. The earth does not need saving. It will go on fine without us tongue.gif
- Rich
Hi Rich! - if expending a few more watts in order to have 4k Plasma will keep me out of 'LCD/LED hell' then I'm all for it! :-D
(And I really don't have much faith that OLED will ever become reliable enough, yield big enough displays, or come down far enough in price to be practical...but I hope I'm wrong though!).
And oh yeah, the plasmas of today use far less energy than similar sized units did even five/six years ago, so...
post #8136 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

Rogo: One of your very best thought pieces.

Thanks much!
Quote:
Thinking about starting an investment letter?

Hmm... interesting. I am thinking about expanding my media-ness beyond just the Forbes blog.
post #8137 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.

They do, however you will find very few examples of products displacing a perfectly good incumbent using this kind of cost reduction as their MO.
Quote:
Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.

Then OLED is in serious trouble by your logic.
Quote:
PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?

I see you're an education snob... Alas.
Quote:
Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.

Normally, I don't bother with your personal attacks. But this one is a new level of "huh"? There's reallly nothing worse? Not murderers? Rapists?

Oh, you just mean in a discussion. So it's not worse to just, say, make up facts. Or to draw conclusions that are completely unsupported by facts in evidence? Those are OK so long as you aggregated your knowledge at MIT or Cal Tech?

I have no real idea what the insult actually means. We're all knowledge aggregators. Few of us can synthesize much from what we know to form reasoned opinions or theses about how things might turn on based on what we know now.

Fortunately for this part of AVS, it has people like slacker, chronoptimist, irkuck and a few others who aggregate their second-hand knowledge in very interesting ways.
post #8138 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsinger View Post

Rogo: One of your very best thought pieces. Thinking about starting an investment letter?

How about AVS Columnist-In-Residence position?
post #8139 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.

Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.

PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?

Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.

I normally don't like to get involved with other people's disputes but rogo has really been a great source of information and I've been enjoying reading his daily posts here, in fact that's one of the reasons I come here. Rogo is extremely knowledgeable of OLED technology and the way they are produced you may not agree with everything he has to say and that's ok but I'd still enjoy hearing his educated opinion on the topic as I'm sure others do as we'll. I would encourage you to listen to what he has to say and if you don't agree with it then share your own opinion with us, or tell us why you don't agree with his opinion I'll read both posts and draw my own conclusions. cool.gif
post #8140 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.

 

[...]


I have no real idea what the insult actually means. We're all knowledge aggregators.

 

Yeah, this seems like one of the weirder jabs at someone I've seen.

post #8141 of 9447
I am starting to feel that large OLED TV displays may never break out beyond being high priced boutique items. If Plasma TVs could not capture enough market share to remain viable, once they are no longer available for a few years, how will OLED displays be able to takeover that niche in the market place, by at the earliest, 2016/2017, and take away market share from LED/LCD product, which will have had the consumer market cornered after Plasma makers have stopped making them? I prefer Plasma to LCD for my own home viewing, but the reality is that the vast majority of consumers have favored LED/LCD displays.

What will be the selling points for OLED displays three years from now to convince all those people that have found LED/LCD displays to meet their viewing needs to switch to OLED sets instead? Will OLED be able to compete with a low enough price point of 2017, and offer enough of a superior worry free viewing experience to even attract enough buyers to make it economically worthwhile for some manufacturers to ramp up mass production of OLED TVs, to where the price levels can compete with the LED/LCD sets? I don't know the answer to that, but I see the chance of OLED ever gaining a bigger market share than Plasma was able to, as highly unlikely. I hope I am wrong about that, but I fear that I am not.
post #8142 of 9447
If OLED ever gets price competitive, then I think it will succeed.

Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.
I have an iPhone and iPads and when I saw my brother OLED phone, I was amazed. It was fantastic.

IMO, it comes down to production costs and solving longevity issues.

- Rich
post #8143 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

If OLED ever gets price competitive, then I think it will succeed.

Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.
I have an iPhone and iPads and when I saw my brother OLED phone, I was amazed. It was fantastic.

IMO, it comes down to production costs and solving longevity issues.

- Rich


Rich

You've nailed it on the head.

Its very unlikely that OLED price curve can catch up with LED's.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the loss of interest by the manufacturers for OLED has more to do with fighting a loosing battle. Build what sells and can be profitable and forget the rest.
post #8144 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadTech51 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by David_B View Post

Plenty if mass produced products who's cost to make only inched down cent by cent over the years. While many companies and products operate under the lower costs as fast as possible what is more important is demand.

Demand or lack of demand is what hurts OLED.

PS were did you get your engineering degree rogo that you can make claims that something can never be done?

Nothing worse then a second hand knowledge aggregator.

I normally don't like to get involved with other people's disputes but rogo has really been a great source of information and I've been enjoying reading his daily posts here, in fact that's one of the reasons I come here. Rogo is extremely knowledgeable of OLED technology and the way they are produced you may not agree with everything he has to say and that's ok but I'd still enjoy hearing his educated opinion on the topic as I'm sure others do as we'll. I would encourage you to listen to what he has to say and if you don't agree with it then share your own opinion with us, or tell us why you don't agree with his opinion I'll read both posts and draw my own conclusions. cool.gif

At the very least he could've offered a point-by-point factual rebuttal. Why do you need a degree in engineering to observe the economics at play in regards to consumer electronics?
post #8145 of 9447
Amongst the regular posters here - who is planning to buy an OLED in 2014?
post #8146 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

So when we talk about OLED, we need to understand that in the real world, it's more expensive to make than LCD.

Yes, but this is meaningless unless you define the markets. The ability for LG to manufacture an OLED to compete with an $800 LCD is very different than their ability to compete in the $2000 price segment. The cost of the backlight in the high-end market dwarfs the cost of a CCFL. An IPS display costs more to manufacture than a TN display.

I have very clearly been saying LG has a chance in the high-end market but that I think that competitive pricing with respect to the low-end will likely require printing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


What I was trying to get across (apparently not very clearly), is that you need high volume to drive costs down and you need high yields to drive volumes.

Ok, so my question is with the first part of the statement. What exactly do you see needing the economies of scale associated with large volumes? This is not a rhetorical question. I look at the components of the cost of an OLED and I am not sure what is going to be driving outsized costs (assuming good yields for LG).

The capex number will drive depreciation and it is fairly small considering the total capacity. The fact that the process is slow and kludgy is incorporated into that capex number. If LG had a faster process they could buy less equipment with a similar capacity. There might some more man-hours due to the nature of the process but labor is a small component of the cost of running a fab.

Materials?
Glass?
RGB filters?
Driver IC's?
PCB?

With the exception of the materials and the IGZO substrate, OLED's are not reinventing the wheel here and the materials are similar enough to mobile that economies of scale will apply.

So yes, yields are an open question. However, if LG is able to drive good yields in their commercial fab (say >80%), then I see little reason that OLED's cannot compete successfully on the high-end of the market.
post #8147 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.
Actually, this is very likely to happen again. This year, all the LCD manufacturers seem to have a focus on either Dolby HDR displays or at least high brightness displays.
Sony's high-end LED models are 2-3x brighter than last year's - and those were already about twice as bright as the current OLED sets.

OLED may not be as dim as plasma displays, or suffer from the same problems in a bright room that plasma does, but they're still nowhere near as bright, and still use an ABL system.

And I have to say, I am coming around to the idea of brighter displays. When it's late at night, I still only want to be looking at a dim screen, but I tried turning up the backlight to its maximum setting earlier in the evening while watching a couple of films, and I have to say that it really did seem "right" for the content being shown. (e.g. scenes at a beach were really bright)
And even though my LCD is about 350cd/m2 maximum brightness (at D65) I would still prefer that it could get brighter during the daytime or on a summer's evening.

While I don't feel that I've done a complete 180 on my previous position on bright displays ("no need for anything more than 100cd/m2 if you watch in a dim environment") I'm now seriously considering one of the new 4K models from Sony rather than waiting for 4K OLED, which could still be five years away from being affordable, bright, and having the longevity/burn-in issues worked out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post

Amongst the regular posters here - who is planning to buy an OLED in 2014?
I had been seriously considering it, but not any more.
post #8148 of 9447
Just got back from CES 2018 and this is what Sony had to say.
Coming soon to LED, "Solar Bright Pro" Burn your eyes out of your head with our new "Solar Bright Pro" panel! 4x as bright as the sun!
post #8149 of 9447
Dr. Who, is that you?
post #8150 of 9447
Nope, Just dialed the Stargate through a solar flare.
post #8151 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris5028 View Post

Just got back from CES 2018 and this is what Sony had to say.
Coming soon to LED, "Solar Bright Pro" Burn your eyes out of your head with our new "Solar Bright Pro" panel! 4x as bright as the sun!
Well actually that's the point - current displays are nowhere near bright enough to accurately convey something like a bright summer day. This is what Dolby HDR and its 4,000 cd/m2 demo is all about.
I was initially against this, even recently, but I'm starting to come around to the idea as long as the display is sufficiently large, and you're not watching in total darkness.

With Sony claiming peak brightness of 3x previous sets, I would expect the new displays to be reaching around 1,000 cd/m2 with the 2014 models.
post #8152 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Well actually that's the point - current displays are nowhere near bright enough to accurately convey something like a bright summer day. This is what Dolby HDR and its 4,000 cd/m2 demo is all about.
I was initially against this, even recently, but I'm starting to come around to the idea as long as the display is sufficiently large, and you're not watching in total darkness.

With Sony claiming peak brightness of 3x previous sets, I would expect the new displays to be reaching around 1,000 cd/m2 with the 2014 models.

So in a year or two's time oled look as dim, relative to lcd, as plasma does today? Brightness killed plasma. Will oled be stillborn?
post #8153 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by work permit View Post

So in a year or two's time oled look as dim, relative to lcd, as plasma does today? Brightness killed plasma. Will oled be stillborn?
A year or two? A large number of the LCD displays to be released in 2014 will have much brighter images now. (at least 2x)

It's certainly looking more and more difficult for OLED to compete.
Edited by Chronoptimist - 1/13/14 at 9:37pm
post #8154 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

How about AVS Columnist-In-Residence position?

Is that a paying gig? smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadTech51 View Post

I normally don't like to get involved with other people's disputes but rogo has really been a great source of information and I've been enjoying reading his daily posts here, in fact that's one of the reasons I come here. Rogo is extremely knowledgeable of OLED technology and the way they are produced you may not agree with everything he has to say and that's ok but I'd still enjoy hearing his educated opinion on the topic as I'm sure others do as we'll. I would encourage you to listen to what he has to say and if you don't agree with it then share your own opinion with us, or tell us why you don't agree with his opinion I'll read both posts and draw my own conclusions. cool.gif

Thanks RadTech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenland View Post

I am starting to feel that large OLED TV displays may never break out beyond being high priced boutique items. If Plasma TVs could not capture enough market share to remain viable, once they are no longer available for a few years, how will OLED displays be able to takeover that niche in the market place, by at the earliest, 2016/2017, and take away market share from LED/LCD product, which will have had the consumer market cornered after Plasma makers have stopped making them? I prefer Plasma to LCD for my own home viewing, but the reality is that the vast majority of consumers have favored LED/LCD displays.

What will be the selling points for OLED displays three years from now to convince all those people that have found LED/LCD displays to meet their viewing needs to switch to OLED sets instead? Will OLED be able to compete with a low enough price point of 2017, and offer enough of a superior worry free viewing experience to even attract enough buyers to make it economically worthwhile for some manufacturers to ramp up mass production of OLED TVs, to where the price levels can compete with the LED/LCD sets? I don't know the answer to that, but I see the chance of OLED ever gaining a bigger market share than Plasma was able to, as highly unlikely. I hope I am wrong about that, but I fear that I am not.

No, you aren't wrong. It's years (a decade?) before OLED can really compete with LCD... What slacker suggests (see below), is that it can compete in the high end market much sooner. He's right on that (I believe), but where we differ is how robust it will be as a technology trying to exist in that very small wedge of the TV business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichB View Post

If OLED ever gets price competitive, then I think it will succeed.

If....
Quote:
Plasma failed in the showroom because of limited full screen brightness (ABL) which OLED does not suffer from, at least not to the same degree.
I have an iPhone and iPads and when I saw my brother OLED phone, I was amazed. It was fantastic.

IMO, it comes down to production costs and solving longevity issues.

The former isn't close to being solved; the latter is also going to be challenging not in terms of reality but in terms of perception. It's a burn-in-able technology. Period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

Its very unlikely that OLED price curve can catch up with LED's.

I wouldn't be surprised if part of the loss of interest by the manufacturers for OLED has more to do with fighting a loosing battle. Build what sells and can be profitable and forget the rest.

That's absolutely correct. They also are better privy to the TV data than I am. And I see a TV market that's in serious decline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightintel View Post

At the very least he could've offered a point-by-point factual rebuttal. Why do you need a degree in engineering to observe the economics at play in regards to consumer electronics?

Why does a credential mean anything? Isn't it about the quality of the argument? Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg all lack engineering degrees, incidentally. (I'm nowhere near in their company; I'm making a point.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by slacker711 View Post

Yes, but this is meaningless unless you define the markets. The ability for LG to manufacture an OLED to compete with an $800 LCD is very different than their ability to compete in the $2000 price segment. The cost of the backlight in the high-end market dwarfs the cost of a CCFL. An IPS display costs more to manufacture than a TN display.

That's fair. The challenge is that the needle we're talking about threading is pretty small...
Quote:
Ok, so my question is with the first part of the statement. What exactly do you see needing the economies of scale associated with large volumes? This is not a rhetorical question. I look at the components of the cost of an OLED and I am not sure what is going to be driving outsized costs (assuming good yields for LG).

The "learning curve" is not about traditional scale economics in many ways, Slacker. We're not debating whether or not buying 10 million of a widget is cheaper enough than 1 million of that widget. What I'm trying to get across is that every photolitho/semiconductor-type technology in the history of the business has had similar economics: The more you make, the cheaper they get. Why? Because everything gets better when you do it. You refine step 11 to go 20% faster. You make step 14 use 10% less material. You figure out how to reduce the cycle time of the LC sputtering step from days to minutes... We can't know what it's going to be for LG, but there are some ripe areas for speculation. The vapor depo stage is (a) slow (b) material wasting (c) not very good at this point. You simply cannot get it as good at 1 million units as you can at 10 million units. They will reduce the cost of manufacture by more than half when they move from 1 million to 10 million. That is simply the way it works. You can't repeal these rules of manufacture with "but, but but....."
Quote:
The capex number will drive depreciation and it is fairly small considering the total capacity. The fact that the process is slow and kludgy is incorporated into that capex number. If LG had a faster process they could buy less equipment with a similar capacity. There might some more man-hours due to the nature of the process but labor is a small component of the cost of running a fab.

Materials?
Glass?
RGB filters?
Driver IC's?
PCB?

With the exception of the materials and the IGZO substrate, OLED's are not reinventing the wheel here and the materials are similar enough to mobile that economies of scale will apply.

Right, so all the non-unique steps still benefit from specific-to-OLED volume. LG is really, really good at making color filters. When they make filters for their OLED, they are less good. Why? Because they make millions upon millions that are purpose built for the LCD and not as many for the OLED... Is this particular difference large? I'm sure it's quite small. I'm also quite sure it's non-zero.
Quote:
So yes, yields are an open question. However, if LG is able to drive good yields in their commercial fab (say >80%), then I see little reason that OLED's cannot compete successfully on the high-end of the market.

You can't hand wave away yield. It's all about yield. To get to 80% yield, they will probably need to make a few million displays. To get to 90%, they will need perhaps the 10 million mark. In the meantime, it's not price competitive with anything.

We could also spend some more time dissecting just how small this high end market really is.

Today, I have defined (based on some data), a TAM for displays of this size that is ~30 million units. Of those, very few are actually high end displays, most are simply large. Even if you believe the TAM will rise to 40 million (which is not very likely right now given TV sales data and the lack of interest in large displays in much of the world, but let's just go there)... you struggle to define a high-end market that is much larger than 5 million units...

Let's say you talk yourself into the fact that it's a 10 million unit market (I am being wildly generous) but your OLED product is $1000 above the current top end. What is the most you capture of that 10 million? Even 1 million seems hard here. This is going to be 2015's problem, not 2014's -- no one believes OLED sales will get much farther than the low six figures this year. But it's going to be a problem. That first million is needed desperately to push yield and lower prices, but it's going to be almost impossible to achieve that demand without pricing farther down the curve than you've currently reached. The Japanese used to do this -- back in the 1970s, when it was to enter a critical field. Is this really critical for Samsung or LG? The whole OLED argument was "make more profits than LCD". But if they are gaming the learning curve at the cost of billions of dollars to do that, well... That's not happening.

None of this means the end result isn't possible. What it means is that achieving that end result is very, very hard from here. This is the well known "valley of death" and, honestly, shipping the first few units only pushed OLED into that valley... It doesn't being to answer the question of whether the tech escapes it (for TVs.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Actually, this is very likely to happen again. This year, all the LCD manufacturers seem to have a focus on either Dolby HDR displays or at least high brightness displays.
Sony's high-end LED models are 2-3x brighter than last year's - and those were already about twice as bright as the current OLED sets.

OLED may not be as dim as plasma displays, or suffer from the same problems in a bright room that plasma does, but they're still nowhere near as bright, and still use an ABL system.
Quote:
And the problem here is not that people need the brightness most of the time. It's the retail issue. You see a bunch of super brights and some dimmer thing... and you steer away from the dimmer thing.
While I don't feel that I've done a complete 180 on my previous position on bright displays ("no need for anything more than 100cd/m2 if you watch in a dim environment") I'm now seriously considering one of the new 4K models from Sony rather than waiting for 4K OLED, which could still be five years away from being affordable, bright, and having the longevity/burn-in issues worked out.
I had been seriously considering it, but not any more.

I have to say that there's no doubt in my mind if I had to buy a TV this year and was basically price indifferent, the Sony 950B would be an absolute no brainer. It's correct that the 4K OLED we want is years from (a) being affordable and (b) a couple of generations from being something I'd trust as a 5-10 year TV.
post #8155 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

And the problem here is not that people need the brightness most of the time. It's the retail issue. You see a bunch of super brights and some dimmer thing... and you steer away from the dimmer thing.
Exactly - which TV would you buy?

nmPrqKC.jpg

A less dramatic comparison shows Sharp's HDR display, rather than Dolby's 4,000cd/m2 prototype, next to a regular LCD display:
6us2N69.jpg

This would have been more dramatic if the camera had correctly exposed for the brighter display - it's a bit over-exposed here.
But just imagine seeing that next to OLEDs which are not even as bright as the regular LCD display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I have to say that there's no doubt in my mind if I had to buy a TV this year and was basically price indifferent, the Sony 950B would be an absolute no brainer. It's correct that the 4K OLED we want is years from (a) being affordable and (b) a couple of generations from being something I'd trust as a 5-10 year TV.
Wow, I just looked into this, and Sony's naming convention is a mess this year.
It's completely different across regions, and the naming scheme is very complicated.

It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. In Europe, those models are the 65X85 (X950) and the 65X9. (X900)
Actually, that's reminiscent of the HX900 being positioned as a lower-end model than the LX900 LCDs back when I bought mine. The LX900 cost more, but was an edge-lit model rather than the local dimming HX900.

The 85X950 (85X95) is still the highest-end model with local dimming though. (and I think 3x peak brightness, rather than 2x on the X900/X9 models)

I also think it's stupid that the product line is X95, X9, X85, W95, W85, W8 etc. in Europe. Why not just go X95, X90, W85, W80 etc?

While I liked the previous design with the speakers on either side of the display, I'm not a fan of how they look this year, and those are the only models with full local dimming. (excluding the 85" which is too big, and probably costs far too much money)
Edited by Chronoptimist - 1/14/14 at 3:41am
post #8156 of 9447
"It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. "

No, the 950B is indeed the U.S. flagship. Nothing sits above it and the 950B is the only U.S. Sony with local dimming. (It comes in 65" and 84").
post #8157 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris5028 View Post

Just got back from CES 2018 and this is what Sony had to say.
Coming soon to LED, "Solar Bright Pro" Burn your eyes out of your head with our new "Solar Bright Pro" panel! 4x as bright as the sun!

Just to add to that.

Dolby Vision is based on technology developed by BrightSide Technologies Inc. which Dolby bought in 2007.

Whatever Sony choose to call it, in their usual style of putting their own marketing name on the same technology that many other manufacturers will also use, this is most likely Dolby Vision technology.

Sony announced in 2011 that they had licensed Dolby Vision "HDR" technology to use on their TVs in the future.

Engadget Dolby/Sony Press Release snippet;
Quote:
Dolby Licenses High Dynamic Range Image Display Patents to Sony

San Francisco, June 6, 2011-
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: DLB) today announced that Sony Corporation has licensed local dimming high dynamic range (HDR) image display patents from Dolby for select Sony BRAVIA™ LCD televisions with LED backlight technology.

LCDs with Dolby's imaging technologies deliver enhanced dynamic contrast to produce vivid images that significantly surpass the picture quality of fluorescent tube backlit LCDs-providing consumers with the high-quality entertainment experience they have come to associate with the Dolby brand.
post #8158 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

We heard the thinness would matter, yet manufacturers have already decided that curving the screen and making it have a deeper profile than existing sets is more interesting to consumers than taking advantage of the thinness.

There is another way to look at this. The curved screens actually allows them to show off just how thin an OLED panel can get. I don't mean the profile of the entire set, just the screen. Without the curve, the screen would need to be thicker to stay rigid and maintain stability on a stand. It's also easier to see the thinness in a curved profile from above without having to look behind the set. Sure LG made a super thin flat version but that required some rather exotic carbon-fiber to achieve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitron View Post

Amongst the regular posters here - who is planning to buy an OLED in 2014?

I would if someone actually produced one with the features I require - < 30ms input lag, CRT level motion blur, and flat.
post #8159 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. "

No, the 950B is indeed the U.S. flagship. Nothing sits above it and the 950B is the only U.S. Sony with local dimming. (It comes in 65" and 84").
Oh, you're right. I could have sworn that when I looked at the page it did not mention local dimming.
It looks like they're either not bringing the 65" model to Europe, or they forgot to list it. The US shots of the X950 look just like the images of the European X85. (which does not have local dimming)
post #8160 of 9447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

"It seems that the 65X950 is billed as the "flagship" display in the US, even though it is actually a lower-end model than the 65X900 and does not include local dimming. "

No, the 950B is indeed the U.S. flagship. Nothing sits above it and the 950B is the only U.S. Sony with local dimming. (It comes in 65" and 84").
Oh, you're right. I could have sworn that when I looked at the page it did not mention local dimming.
It looks like they're either not bringing the 65" model to Europe, or they forgot to list it. The US shots of the X950 look just like the images of the European X85. (which does not have local dimming)

 

It might not have been your fault if you were using sony.com.  I've been checking the Sony webpages for information often and they do change over time.  Currently some spec sheets are outright missing, and one even claims to give active-3D glasses for a passive-3D display (not sure which is correct).  There are a lot of last minute cut-and-paste errors going on I think.

 

This happened last year too.  At least they provide some information.  I can't dig a thing out of most of the manufacturers.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Flat Panels General and OLED Technology › OLED TVs: Technology Advancements Thread