LCD will go the way of the dodo like CRT before it. Yes it's expensive out of the gate, so was plasma, wasn't all that long ago they were 10k. The OLED advantages (low power, no size or resolution limits) are outstanding and I've seen this TV at the Show, it's phenomenal and it's definitely the future. With flexible and transparent screens behind it, could see a lot of nifty things in the next 5-10 years.
LCD will go the way of the dodo like CRT before it. Yes it's expensive out of the gate, so was plasma, wasn't all that long ago they were 10k. The OLED advantages (low power, no size or resolution limits) are outstanding and I've seen this TV at the Show, it's phenomenal and it's definitely the future. With flexible and transparent screens behind it, could see a lot of nifty things in the next 5-10 years.
I wouldn't be so quick to say LCD is an EOL tech. Plasma had more technological pros than cons over LCD and it never cornered the market the way LCD has. Price is a huge factor and LCD is still vastly cheaper.
But speaking strictly of tech has OLED conquered its issues? What's the longevity of the blue pixel? How do the display hold up over 1000, 5000, and 10,000 hours? How is the power usage for standard use, not just when displaying blacks? What is the colour accuracy, etc.?
PS: Apple has really outdone itself with the new iPad display but I have yet to see any 10" OLED-based tablets on the market. Based on the info about how we can make superior HDTV size OLED displays that use less power than LCD then why don't we see much smaller OLED displays for tablets and notebooks? It seems to be there is a lot of trumped up marketing and not much else at this point.
I wouldn't be so quick to say LCD is an EOL tech. Plasma had more technological pros and cons over LCD and it never cornered the market the way LCD has. Price is a huge factor and LCD is still vastly cheaper.
But speaking strictly of tech has OLED conquered its issues? What's the longevity of the blue pixel? How do the display hold up over 1000, 5000, and 10,000 hours? How is the power usage for standard use, not just when displaying blacks? What is the colour accuracy, etc.?
PS: Apple has really outdone itself with the new iPad display but I have yet to see any 10" OLED-based tablets on the market. Based on the info about how we can make superior HDTV size OLED displays that use less power than LCD then why don't we see much smaller OLED displays for tablets and notebooks? It seems to be there is a lot of trumped up marketing and not much else at this point.
And in this case trumped up marketing meets "Apple is always wrong" ideology (Apple uses LCD not OLED therefore LCD is vastly inferior, OLED is the future, and Apple is once again stuck with outdated tech that they charge too much for).
I remember when a lot of folks were claiming that DLP projectors would quickly drive LCD out of the market. That never happened, because while DLP has advantages, LCD improved, plus delivers more lumen per dollar. Some markets prefer brightness over black levels.
OLED delivers better black levels, better power consumption under some scenarios and is much more expensive. It may or may not overcome some drawbacks and drop radically in price, but just because manufacturers are consolidating on the technology doesn't automatically mean it's the best for consumers-- just that it's better for the manufactures.
One incentive to change horses may be the collapse of LCD prices, and the difficulty making any money there. The new cool thing, with premium pricing, would be a shot in the arm for the panel fabs. None of that has a thing to do with what makes the best picture (and deep blacks aren't the only measure of PQ), and anyone assuming that this somehow proves that LCD is "outdated" isn't really paying attention.
I wouldn't be so quick to say LCD is an EOL tech. Plasma had more technological pros and cons over LCD and it never cornered the market the way LCD has. Price is a huge factor and LCD is still vastly cheaper.
But speaking strictly of tech has OLED conquered its issues? What's the longevity of the blue pixel? How do the display hold up over 1000, 5000, and 10,000 hours? How is the power usage for standard use, not just when displaying blacks? What is the colour accuracy, etc.?
PS: Apple has really outdone itself with the new iPad display but I have yet to see any 10" OLED-based tablets on the market. Based on the info about how we can make superior HDTV size OLED displays that use less power than LCD then why don't we see much smaller OLED displays for tablets and notebooks? It seems to be there is a lot of trumped up marketing and not much else at this point.
It's certainly not a lot of trumped up marketing and don't be dismissive if you don't have the full education on it. I've physically seen the 55in TV. It's not something you can write on, you have to see. The difference is vast, and real. Plasma is still more expensive than LCD and will stay that way as the nature of the beast of both technologies. OLED as it ramps up will eventually be cheaper than both as the production moves to laser by nearly all accounts, at some point, but likely several years away. This TV is rated for 30,000 hours. It's white pixels with 4 sub pixel arrangement (obviously not Pentile crap). LG made mention it uses on average 50% less power than a comparable LCD TV. It also includes some type of Kodak color refining tech that allows you adjustments to your liking, but I did not see that in person.
Why doesn't every laptop ship with a SSD yet? Because it's still expensive that's why. Same in this case. OLED is still relatively new compared to the billions that have been spent on LCD research over the last decades. As the costs come down you will see it in more places. For now LCD is good enough and the costs are more practical but the writing will ultimately be on the wall.
It's certainly not a lot of trumped up marketing and don't be dismissive if you don't have the full education on it. I've physically seen the 55in TV. It's not something you can write on, you have to see. The difference is vast, and real. Plasma is still more expensive than LCD and will stay that way as the nature of the beast of both technologies. OLED as it ramps up will eventually be cheaper than both as the production moves to laser by nearly all accounts, at some point, but likely several years away. This TV is rated for 30,000 hours. It's white pixels with 4 sub pixel arrangement (obviously not Pentile crap). LG made mention it uses on average 50% less power than a comparable LCD TV. It also includes some type of Kodak color refining tech that allows you adjustments to your liking, but I did not see that in person.
Why doesn't every laptop ship with a SSD yet? Because it's still expensive that's why. Same in this case. OLED is still relatively new compared to the billions that have been spent on LCD research over the last decades. As the costs come down you will see it in more places. For now LCD is good enough and the costs are more practical but the writing will ultimately be on the wall.
The thing about making predictions about this or that tech-killer is that one doesn't have to be intimate with a specific product in order to understand how technology markets work. You may be right, this might be the first OLED tech that will decimate the LCD market at some unspecified time in the future, but you there is nothing you've written that has indicated that is the case.
Specs alone certainly won't do it. We've seen time and time again that better specs do not equate to market dominance. You also can't go with a MSRP for a still pre-production premium product as an indicator of a trend.
How many can they produce compared to an LCD panel of the same size and relative quality for a specific production line? Are they selling it for a profit, or at or below cost as a marketing ploy and/or a retail reproof-of-concept? You should be asking such questions and more. It doesn't me this is the next big trend but it does mean they are trying to make it the next big trend. More power to them, but don't get caught up in the hype.
And in this case trumped up marketing meets "Apple is always wrong" ideology (Apple uses LCD not OLED therefore LCD is vastly inferior, OLED is the future, and Apple is once again stuck with outdated tech that they charge too much for).
it's unfortunate that a tech can seem inferior simply because the same acronym is utilized. How many years have been hearing that Apple is stupid for using LCD over OLED?
What really grates on me is when people say the 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPad is antiquated. I can not wrap my head around how the measure of x and yaxes can be antiquated.
Quote:
One incentive to change horses may be the collapse of LCD prices, and the difficulty making any money there. The new cool thing, with premium pricing, would be a shot in the arm for the panel fabs. None of that has a thing to do with what makes the best picture (and deep blacks aren't the only measure of PQ), and anyone assuming that this somehow proves that LCD is "outdated" isn't really paying attention.
That 55" HDTV theaveragejoe posted is 1080p and appears to be 16:9. That means it has a PPI of just 40 and you'd have to sit over 7" away to retain that "retina display" effect if you have 20/20 vision.
It seems to me that higher resolution displays may be creeping into common HDTVs within a couple years. This can certainly be marketed. Can OLED also match a jump to 2k and 4k displays as easily as LCD seems to do it? So far, even on the small scale the only OLED displays shipping in quantity that come to close to the iPhone 4 from 2010 are using Samsung's PenTile display tech which is 1/3 fewer sub-pixels. It's a good solution for saving power but it's certainly not ideal.
Comments
Really? So which manufacturers are making a 60" TV with AMOLED panel. Or even a 50" TV?
Read and learn:
http://www.oled-info.com/amoled
You should read and learn.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/27/29...e-release-date
LCD will go the way of the dodo like CRT before it. Yes it's expensive out of the gate, so was plasma, wasn't all that long ago they were 10k. The OLED advantages (low power, no size or resolution limits) are outstanding and I've seen this TV at the Show, it's phenomenal and it's definitely the future. With flexible and transparent screens behind it, could see a lot of nifty things in the next 5-10 years.
You should read and learn.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/27/29...e-release-date
LCD will go the way of the dodo like CRT before it. Yes it's expensive out of the gate, so was plasma, wasn't all that long ago they were 10k. The OLED advantages (low power, no size or resolution limits) are outstanding and I've seen this TV at the Show, it's phenomenal and it's definitely the future. With flexible and transparent screens behind it, could see a lot of nifty things in the next 5-10 years.
I wouldn't be so quick to say LCD is an EOL tech. Plasma had more technological pros than cons over LCD and it never cornered the market the way LCD has. Price is a huge factor and LCD is still vastly cheaper.
But speaking strictly of tech has OLED conquered its issues? What's the longevity of the blue pixel? How do the display hold up over 1000, 5000, and 10,000 hours? How is the power usage for standard use, not just when displaying blacks? What is the colour accuracy, etc.?
PS: Apple has really outdone itself with the new iPad display but I have yet to see any 10" OLED-based tablets on the market. Based on the info about how we can make superior HDTV size OLED displays that use less power than LCD then why don't we see much smaller OLED displays for tablets and notebooks? It seems to be there is a lot of trumped up marketing and not much else at this point.
Money-losing is standard usage.
Agreed.
I wouldn't be so quick to say LCD is an EOL tech. Plasma had more technological pros and cons over LCD and it never cornered the market the way LCD has. Price is a huge factor and LCD is still vastly cheaper.
But speaking strictly of tech has OLED conquered its issues? What's the longevity of the blue pixel? How do the display hold up over 1000, 5000, and 10,000 hours? How is the power usage for standard use, not just when displaying blacks? What is the colour accuracy, etc.?
PS: Apple has really outdone itself with the new iPad display but I have yet to see any 10" OLED-based tablets on the market. Based on the info about how we can make superior HDTV size OLED displays that use less power than LCD then why don't we see much smaller OLED displays for tablets and notebooks? It seems to be there is a lot of trumped up marketing and not much else at this point.
And in this case trumped up marketing meets "Apple is always wrong" ideology (Apple uses LCD not OLED therefore LCD is vastly inferior, OLED is the future, and Apple is once again stuck with outdated tech that they charge too much for).
I remember when a lot of folks were claiming that DLP projectors would quickly drive LCD out of the market. That never happened, because while DLP has advantages, LCD improved, plus delivers more lumen per dollar. Some markets prefer brightness over black levels.
OLED delivers better black levels, better power consumption under some scenarios and is much more expensive. It may or may not overcome some drawbacks and drop radically in price, but just because manufacturers are consolidating on the technology doesn't automatically mean it's the best for consumers-- just that it's better for the manufactures.
One incentive to change horses may be the collapse of LCD prices, and the difficulty making any money there. The new cool thing, with premium pricing, would be a shot in the arm for the panel fabs. None of that has a thing to do with what makes the best picture (and deep blacks aren't the only measure of PQ), and anyone assuming that this somehow proves that LCD is "outdated" isn't really paying attention.
I wouldn't be so quick to say LCD is an EOL tech. Plasma had more technological pros and cons over LCD and it never cornered the market the way LCD has. Price is a huge factor and LCD is still vastly cheaper.
But speaking strictly of tech has OLED conquered its issues? What's the longevity of the blue pixel? How do the display hold up over 1000, 5000, and 10,000 hours? How is the power usage for standard use, not just when displaying blacks? What is the colour accuracy, etc.?
PS: Apple has really outdone itself with the new iPad display but I have yet to see any 10" OLED-based tablets on the market. Based on the info about how we can make superior HDTV size OLED displays that use less power than LCD then why don't we see much smaller OLED displays for tablets and notebooks? It seems to be there is a lot of trumped up marketing and not much else at this point.
It's certainly not a lot of trumped up marketing and don't be dismissive if you don't have the full education on it. I've physically seen the 55in TV. It's not something you can write on, you have to see. The difference is vast, and real. Plasma is still more expensive than LCD and will stay that way as the nature of the beast of both technologies. OLED as it ramps up will eventually be cheaper than both as the production moves to laser by nearly all accounts, at some point, but likely several years away. This TV is rated for 30,000 hours. It's white pixels with 4 sub pixel arrangement (obviously not Pentile crap). LG made mention it uses on average 50% less power than a comparable LCD TV. It also includes some type of Kodak color refining tech that allows you adjustments to your liking, but I did not see that in person.
Why doesn't every laptop ship with a SSD yet? Because it's still expensive that's why. Same in this case. OLED is still relatively new compared to the billions that have been spent on LCD research over the last decades. As the costs come down you will see it in more places. For now LCD is good enough and the costs are more practical but the writing will ultimately be on the wall.
It's certainly not a lot of trumped up marketing and don't be dismissive if you don't have the full education on it. I've physically seen the 55in TV. It's not something you can write on, you have to see. The difference is vast, and real. Plasma is still more expensive than LCD and will stay that way as the nature of the beast of both technologies. OLED as it ramps up will eventually be cheaper than both as the production moves to laser by nearly all accounts, at some point, but likely several years away. This TV is rated for 30,000 hours. It's white pixels with 4 sub pixel arrangement (obviously not Pentile crap). LG made mention it uses on average 50% less power than a comparable LCD TV. It also includes some type of Kodak color refining tech that allows you adjustments to your liking, but I did not see that in person.
Why doesn't every laptop ship with a SSD yet? Because it's still expensive that's why. Same in this case. OLED is still relatively new compared to the billions that have been spent on LCD research over the last decades. As the costs come down you will see it in more places. For now LCD is good enough and the costs are more practical but the writing will ultimately be on the wall.
The thing about making predictions about this or that tech-killer is that one doesn't have to be intimate with a specific product in order to understand how technology markets work. You may be right, this might be the first OLED tech that will decimate the LCD market at some unspecified time in the future, but you there is nothing you've written that has indicated that is the case.
Specs alone certainly won't do it. We've seen time and time again that better specs do not equate to market dominance. You also can't go with a MSRP for a still pre-production premium product as an indicator of a trend.
How many can they produce compared to an LCD panel of the same size and relative quality for a specific production line? Are they selling it for a profit, or at or below cost as a marketing ploy and/or a retail reproof-of-concept? You should be asking such questions and more. It doesn't me this is the next big trend but it does mean they are trying to make it the next big trend. More power to them, but don't get caught up in the hype.
And in this case trumped up marketing meets "Apple is always wrong" ideology (Apple uses LCD not OLED therefore LCD is vastly inferior, OLED is the future, and Apple is once again stuck with outdated tech that they charge too much for).
it's unfortunate that a tech can seem inferior simply because the same acronym is utilized. How many years have been hearing that Apple is stupid for using LCD over OLED?
What really grates on me is when people say the 4:3 aspect ratio of the iPad is antiquated. I can not wrap my head around how the measure of x and yaxes can be antiquated.
One incentive to change horses may be the collapse of LCD prices, and the difficulty making any money there. The new cool thing, with premium pricing, would be a shot in the arm for the panel fabs. None of that has a thing to do with what makes the best picture (and deep blacks aren't the only measure of PQ), and anyone assuming that this somehow proves that LCD is "outdated" isn't really paying attention.
That 55" HDTV theaveragejoe posted is 1080p and appears to be 16:9. That means it has a PPI of just 40 and you'd have to sit over 7" away to retain that "retina display" effect if you have 20/20 vision.
It seems to me that higher resolution displays may be creeping into common HDTVs within a couple years. This can certainly be marketed. Can OLED also match a jump to 2k and 4k displays as easily as LCD seems to do it? So far, even on the small scale the only OLED displays shipping in quantity that come to close to the iPhone 4 from 2010 are using Samsung's PenTile display tech which is 1/3 fewer sub-pixels. It's a good solution for saving power but it's certainly not ideal.