Originally Posted by rogo
It's pretty obvious all four SKUs are made differently. Two use the "OLED on glass" design. Those are clearly different.
The other two are either curved or not. I'm assuming on the "not" ones, the polarizer is never added.
Given that eventually ~90% of the displays coming off the line are going to be that SKU, I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption at all.
Yes, correct. Not at all a related concept, but absolutely correct.
Adding a step to physical manufacturing adds a great deal of complexity and cost.
[BI'll take my bet[/B].
Well, it appears that I lost my bet with you regarding the R65 pricing, so I've learned to be a bit more cautious in tangling with your judgement
That being said, there is significant engineering leverage in having the full 2016 OLED lineup share picture quality fundamentals - any savings from skipping the polarizer on the B6 would probably be more than wiped out by the additional engineering required to make the B6 deliver HDR to the same quality they have developed for the G6, E6 and C6.
Assuming that LGD delivers the OLED panels pre-mounted on glass and with 3D polarizes applied (or not
), then there must already be 3 distinct SKUs due to the curved screen of the C6, as you point out.
But if the polarizes are applied earlier in the manufacturing pipeline and before the OLED substrate is attached to glass, the increased complexity/cost argument stands.
LG has little/nothing to gain by skipping the polarizer other than increased peak brightness on the B6 (which also risks implying that the G6, E6 and C6 are not bright enough).
When we see specs touting increased peak brightness on the B6, I'll acknowledge that you were right and I was wrong (yet again
). Until then, I'm reserving judgement.