Hmm...that works out to be more expensive per song that you actually keep.
It doesn't sound so clear cut to me. You leave out the cost of songs that you might not have bought if you were allowed to listen to the whole thing rather than a possibly poorly chosen 30 second clip of it. Or avoiding buying songs that don't have as good of a replay value as you thought it did. It seems like it gets you a better chance to more conveniently sample tracks that you wouldn't have time to try before, just download and listen at your convenience rather than wait until you have to do the interactive and limited sampling the iTunes store offers.
How is it more expensive? I have been using napster to go for a few years now and have over 3000 tracks in my library. If I were using that horrible program itunes that would cost me more than $3000.
Care to at least state how much have you spent for all these years now? My issue with rent-a-music scheme is that I'm against DRM, and "renting" music is only playing to the majors' rythms, and I hate that. Personally, I have nothing against differing business schemes, so long as they don't destroy our freedoms...
Quote:
I don't understand why Apple has so many fanboys for their inferior overpriced products and their lame software Itunes. I mean the program runs like crap on PC
Hear hear! iTunes is shitty on the PC. That's because they compile the program in the mac and then port it to the PC, which is not the optimal way to make programs at all. You should try iTunes on the mac, though. It's snappier than any WM player on any PC.
Quote:
...and it can't do basic things like monitor a folder for new music. Ipods can only play music and they do not include an FM tuner. They don't support other music formats like all the other players like wma, wmv and the sound quality is below average. Yet they have all these fanboys.
wma is ms proprietary code. AAC is the open standard. I appreciate the effort Apple is putting into turning every music file out there into an open standard. You can always convert wma's into AAC, which I recommend wholeheartedly. May wma die with pain!
But sound quality below average? That's news to me.
Quote:
The Zune seems like a really good MP3 player if you ask me. HD tuner is really good but the fact that it operates like a gimped ipod troubles me. I like the freedom of connecting my mp3 player to any pc and drag or delete tracks from it without the need of software.
*sigh* Those were the times, yeah. But these companies have to pander with DRM issues, so that's almost impossible nowadays.
A good quality LCD actually uses ambient light to make its image brighter and more vibrant; OLED does not. This means when you take it outside, the OLED's screen is completely washed out by sunlight. Unless you only plan to use your mobile device in your dark basement, you don't want one of today's OLED screens, particularly on a mobile media player that you might expect to use on the go in various environments.
A shot in the dark
Microsoft knows this, which is why it only demonstrates the Zune HD in dark rooms. Engadget filmed a full demonstration, including the device's incapacity to pull up a web page, in a suspiciously dark room without even noting this. There are actually candles visibly flickering in the video behind the device.
omg please... OLEDs are better than lcd-tft: better image under direct sunlight and drains less power.
I doubt it's any more so than Apple's "i" everything camel case naming scheme.
Next, someone will be saying that MBP isn't a legitimate name shortening scheme because it's not Apple's official name for it. I really don't see the problem with name shortening, seeing the name long hand all the time gets old. iPod Touch doesn't have a good abbreviation, I think iTouch is good enough.
Actually, I was sort of pointing to the fact that the sloppiness in his thinking and arguments were evidenced by the use of lazy words like 'itouch.' I was perhaps being too pithy, and probably should have elaborated.....
With no OS X support, I can't use a zune (not that I'd ever want to) as all 3 computers in my household are Macs, #1 is my 17" MacBook Pro by my bedside, #2 is my wife's 15" MacBook Pro by her side of the bed (And we have these real cool swiveling leather wrapped shelves which came attached to the headboard of our italian imported bedroom set where our laptops sit on and swivel to or away from the mattress resulting in clutter free computing fun in the evenings) and #3 is my iMac as the heart of my audio and video recording studio in the office which my 4 year old also uses to play on a web sight called noggin. I may have gave more info then needed here but thats because we are so satisfied with our Mac home. We both have iPhones, we have MobileMe, AppleTV, 3 Airport expresses for each stereo in the house and Time Capsule to back up each Mac not to mention the countless iPods we had trough the years and my 4 year old son's iPod touch which I loaded up with tons of educational Apps and puzzles and DVD Rips of his favorite movies like Ratatouille, Cars and Ice Age, He navigates through that iPod touch like a pro and impresses our friends and family. I have a 80Gb classic which I connect to my Pioneer AVIC-N3 Navigation-DVD Player system with iPod connector in my SUV and watch videos or listen to music in the SUV while driving. I also have been DJing since I was 16 years old and just recently I went from a CD digital to an MP3 digital DJ using my iPod and a Numark iDJ2 mixer (All my mp3s are 320kbps for best quality) so there is no need for lugging around hundreds of pounds of vinyl records or even cases of CDs, with an 80Gb iPod I have all my music ready to play at a party though I don't DJ professionally anymore but rather as a hobby now, I am seeing more people calling me being that I'm so mobile now. I bet you cant do that kind of stuff with zune! Sure can't DJ with a zune.
Anyway, we are an extremely satisfied Apple brand name using family and with iPod and Mac OS X in the heart of our digital lives, we clearly have a great advantage in our tech lifestyle.
Care to at least state how much have you spent for all these years now? My issue with rent-a-music scheme is that I'm against DRM, and "renting" music is only playing to the majors' rythms, and I hate that. Personally, I have nothing against differing business schemes, so long as they don't destroy our freedoms...
I have been a Nap to go customer for about 3 years which equals to about $540 for all the music I want old and new. I have no issues with DRM as it gives me unlimited music for a very low price.
So itunes is fast on Mac but slow on PC? Strange that they will do that because Mac has a very weak market share so all those Ipod users have to settle for a slow blaothed software to sync their music. Like I said the thing can't even monitor a folder like it's 1989.
"Despite the hype, the Zune HD appears to have failed before even hitting the market"
is that why zune 32 is outselling itouch 32 on amazon?
"LCDs: a typical maximum output of 200cd/m^2 compared to around 4-500 for mid-range"
does itouch output that high? NO
"Tegra is also being hyped as providing "8 processing cores,""
is that why itouch still uses technology that came out almost 7 years ago?
and for your INFO, iphone color is much more brilliant than itouch
"NVIDIA promotes Tegra as being "Ultra Low Power," but its standard ARM11 CPU doesn't deliver anything that isn't available in other ARM designs, nor any special power savings over more powerful and modern processors like the Coretex-A8 in the iPhone 3GS and latest iPod touch. "
is that why zune had 50% more battery life than itouch when it comes to video playback?
cry all you want here are real facts
there is NO significant different between itouch 2g and itouch 3g
itouch's graphic is worse than iphone
battery life is much greater than anything that apple can offer
nano's video quality is worse than the lowest flip $100 video recorder (i might add 10 times worse)
and finally, thanks for a great article, it shows the fear in your eyes
if you had no fear, you wouldn't have written this article
Incorrect the iPod 16Gb and 32GB are in no 1 and no2 positions, the Zune is 3rd.
Prince McLean/Daniel Eran makes reading Apple Insider a waste of time.
AI is losing all credibility to me having such a fanboy
Totally agree. This smear is very sad to see.
That they downplay Tegra and OLED should be evident of the intentions of Daniel and company to even the slowest person. Really if the iTouch is so great(it is) then why write such an article.
Actually, I was sort of pointing to the fact that the sloppiness in his thinking and arguments were evidenced by the use of lazy words like 'itouch.' I was perhaps being too pithy, and probably should have elaborated.....
Are you complaining about the lack of the capitalization, or the name shortening in general?
I want to break my Macbook and burn my iPhone after reading this article. Its reasons why I'm sometimes ashamed to use Apple products and be in any form associated with Apple fanbois.
This article is complete lies. This just proves how scared you really are of the Zune.
All in all I welcome the competition and the Zune HD does so much right. All this proves is you are scared and the Zune HD will sell very well. If you thought Microsoft would keep the '1 %' of the market, you would not have wasted your time making up lies.
People said the exact same thing when Microsoft first came out with the Zune and look at what happened, the Zune was a failure...
First off, Microsoft gave the Zune HD a new OLED display. OLED is an interesting new technology that uses a layer of electroluminescent organic compounds, rather than the inorganic materials used in traditional LCDs, to produce an image. OLED panels don't require a backlight, so they can render true blacks and provide a higher contrast ratio.
I actually have a little background in this, so let me take a whack at it...
Traditional LCD screens produce a color image by selectively filtering down a white light source, the backlight. As the name implies, the backlight lies at the back of the screen, and fires forward toward the viewer. Most backlights use CCFL tubes, while those on high-end televisions sometimes use LEDs instead.
Of the total amount of light produced, only a tiny fraction makes it through the entire screen. The filtering starts by removing over 1/2 of the light that's not polarized in the right direction. It then flows through a series of colored filters, LCD shutters and another polarizer on the front. In a typical display, only about 10% of the light at the back of the screen reaches the viewer.
LED's produce light directly on their front surface in the color you want, so almost 100% of the light they produce reaches your eye. Modern devices are more efficient than a CCFL as well, so the amount of energy needed to produce any given image is much lower for LEDs than LCDs. Unfortunately, traditional LEDs are fairly large, and not really suitable for television-like displays.
Into this void steps the OLED, which uses a printable technology that can scale down to useful sizes. Although the OLED is not efficient as the traditional LED, the overall end-to-end performance is still much better than an LCD of the same brightness. OLED screens require about 1/2 as much power as an LCD to display an all-white image (the most efficient image one an LCD can display) and are generally much more efficient as most images contain colors or graduations in brightness.
There, that is an accurate description of the technologies involved.
Quote:
However, today's OLED panels are much dimmer than standard issue LCDs
No, SOME of today's OLED panels are. Others are much brigher. Seeing as you didn't actually see the Zune and based your entire article on supposition from a photo series on Engaget, let's turn to someone that actually has seen the new device, Ars:
Quote:
3.3 inch OLED screen: Sure, we knew all about it, but how does it look? With a unit in our grubby little hands, we can confidently say it looks pretty damn good. Colors are saturated and the screen is terrifically bright?so much so that even my dad (!) commented after seeing the device begin playing its demo movie.
Everything I've heard states in normal use it is much brighter than the iPhone. It is entirely possible that it has problems outdoors, likely even, but the iPhone is hardly perfect here either.
Quote:
There are other problems with OLED. They don't last long,
They last more than long enough for a device that is essentially disposable over a period of 2 to 3 years.
Quote:
And despite the power savings attributed to OLED's backlight-free design, OLEDs still use more power than LCD displays most of the time because the OLED technology consumes power based on how bright the image it is displaying is. Essentially, OLED is the backlight.
This statement is absolutely false. OLED screens use, less power than an LCD of the same size and brightness. Period. Can I put numbers to this? Sure:
This post suggests they will use about 30% of the power of the equivalent CCFL backlit LCD, like the one in the iPhone.
"Considering it's got an energy-saving OLED screen, we were disappointed with the battery life of the Jet. Perhaps the powerful processor puts some extra drain on the juice, but the promised 180 minutes of talk time and 250 hours' standby translated into a barely a day of moderate use."
And they guessed it was the processor, which strikes me as just as informed as your guess. Of course, it could be neither of these things.
Quote:
If you're wondering why Apple, which sells tens of millions of mobile devices per year
Perhaps it's because Apple sells millions of devices a year, and current production lines can't handle that load. Whereas MS, which sells perhaps 1/20th the number, doesn't present any particular strain.
Your knowledge of the OLED market appears as limited as your knowledge of its technology.
I actually have a little background in this, so let me take a whack at it...
Traditional LCD screens produce a color image by selectively filtering down a white light source, the backlight. As the name implies, the backlight lies at the back of the screen, and fires forward toward the viewer. Most backlights use CCFL tubes, while those on high-end televisions sometimes use LEDs instead.
Of the total amount of light produced, only a tiny fraction makes it through the entire screen. The filtering starts by removing over 1/2 of the light that's not polarized in the right direction. It then flows through a series of colored filters, LCD shutters and another polarizer on the front. In a typical display, only about 10% of the light at the back of the screen reaches the viewer.
LED's produce light directly on their front surface in the color you want, so almost 100% of the light they produce reaches your eye. Modern devices are more efficient than a CCFL as well, so the amount of energy needed to produce any given image is much lower for LEDs than LCDs. Unfortunately, traditional LEDs are fairly large, and not really suitable for television-like displays.
Into this void steps the OLED, which uses a printable technology that can scale down to useful sizes. Although the OLED is not efficient as the traditional LED, the overall end-to-end performance is still much better than an LCD of the same brightness. OLED screens require about 1/2 as much power as an LCD to display an all-white image (the most efficient image one an LCD can display) and are generally much more efficient as most images contain colors or graduations in brightness.
There, that is an accurate description of the technologies involved.
No, SOME of today's OLED panels are. Others are much brigher. Seeing as you didn't actually see the Zune and based your entire article on supposition from a photo series on Engaget, let's turn to someone that actually has seen the new device, Ars:
Everything I've heard states in normal use it is much brighter than the iPhone. It is entirely possible that it has problems outdoors, likely even, but the iPhone is hardly perfect here either.
They last more than long enough for a device that is essentially disposable over a period of 2 to 3 years.
This statement is absolutely false. OLED screens use, less power than an LCD of the same size and brightness. Period. Can I put numbers to this? Sure:
This post suggests they will use about 30% of the power of the equivalent CCFL backlit LCD, like the one in the iPhone.
"Considering it's got an energy-saving OLED screen, we were disappointed with the battery life of the Jet. Perhaps the powerful processor puts some extra drain on the juice, but the promised 180 minutes of talk time and 250 hours' standby translated into a barely a day of moderate use."
And they guessed it was the processor, which strikes me as just as informed as your guess. Of course, it could be neither of these things.
Perhaps it's because Apple sells millions of devices a year, and current production lines can't handle that load. Whereas MS, which sells perhaps 1/20th the number, doesn't present any particular strain.
Your knowledge of the OLED market appears as limited as your knowledge of its technology.
Maury
Great even-handed post! Nice to hear some voices of reason.
This post suggests they will use about 30% of the power of the equivalent CCFL backlit LCD, like the one in the iPhone.
erm, all very interesting but the iPhone used LED backlighting for the LCD not CCFL just like the majority of mobiles and smartphones have for the past 5+ years.
But of course you knew this seeing as you know a 'little' something about this.
Woo-hoo, 258 posts and counting! It's nice to get back to the good old Mac vs. Peecee Wars again. All it took was a credible Zune to squeeze testosterone into the bloodstreams of all us Mac fanbois and all you Microsoft-is-King-and-everything-Apple-makes-is-crap boys.
Comments
Hmm...that works out to be more expensive per song that you actually keep.
It doesn't sound so clear cut to me. You leave out the cost of songs that you might not have bought if you were allowed to listen to the whole thing rather than a possibly poorly chosen 30 second clip of it. Or avoiding buying songs that don't have as good of a replay value as you thought it did. It seems like it gets you a better chance to more conveniently sample tracks that you wouldn't have time to try before, just download and listen at your convenience rather than wait until you have to do the interactive and limited sampling the iTunes store offers.
How is it more expensive? I have been using napster to go for a few years now and have over 3000 tracks in my library. If I were using that horrible program itunes that would cost me more than $3000.
Care to at least state how much have you spent for all these years now? My issue with rent-a-music scheme is that I'm against DRM, and "renting" music is only playing to the majors' rythms, and I hate that. Personally, I have nothing against differing business schemes, so long as they don't destroy our freedoms...
I don't understand why Apple has so many fanboys for their inferior overpriced products and their lame software Itunes. I mean the program runs like crap on PC
Hear hear! iTunes is shitty on the PC. That's because they compile the program in the mac and then port it to the PC, which is not the optimal way to make programs at all. You should try iTunes on the mac, though. It's snappier than any WM player on any PC.
...and it can't do basic things like monitor a folder for new music. Ipods can only play music and they do not include an FM tuner. They don't support other music formats like all the other players like wma, wmv and the sound quality is below average. Yet they have all these fanboys.
wma is ms proprietary code. AAC is the open standard. I appreciate the effort Apple is putting into turning every music file out there into an open standard. You can always convert wma's into AAC, which I recommend wholeheartedly. May wma die with pain!
But sound quality below average? That's news to me.
The Zune seems like a really good MP3 player if you ask me. HD tuner is really good but the fact that it operates like a gimped ipod troubles me. I like the freedom of connecting my mp3 player to any pc and drag or delete tracks from it without the need of software.
*sigh* Those were the times, yeah. But these companies have to pander with DRM issues, so that's almost impossible nowadays.
A good quality LCD actually uses ambient light to make its image brighter and more vibrant; OLED does not. This means when you take it outside, the OLED's screen is completely washed out by sunlight. Unless you only plan to use your mobile device in your dark basement, you don't want one of today's OLED screens, particularly on a mobile media player that you might expect to use on the go in various environments.
A shot in the dark
Microsoft knows this, which is why it only demonstrates the Zune HD in dark rooms. Engadget filmed a full demonstration, including the device's incapacity to pull up a web page, in a suspiciously dark room without even noting this. There are actually candles visibly flickering in the video behind the device.
omg please... OLEDs are better than lcd-tft: better image under direct sunlight and drains less power.
I want to break my Macbook and burn my iPhone after reading this article.
I dare you. Post a picture!
I doubt it's any more so than Apple's "i" everything camel case naming scheme.
Next, someone will be saying that MBP isn't a legitimate name shortening scheme because it's not Apple's official name for it. I really don't see the problem with name shortening, seeing the name long hand all the time gets old. iPod Touch doesn't have a good abbreviation, I think iTouch is good enough.
Actually, I was sort of pointing to the fact that the sloppiness in his thinking and arguments were evidenced by the use of lazy words like 'itouch.' I was perhaps being too pithy, and probably should have elaborated.....
that happened AFTER another $20 price drop
this is before, until today's price drop
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/192/zunehdnumbuh1.png
Ah, so it's a classic case of "That is now. This was then"?
Anyway, we are an extremely satisfied Apple brand name using family and with iPod and Mac OS X in the heart of our digital lives, we clearly have a great advantage in our tech lifestyle.
Care to at least state how much have you spent for all these years now? My issue with rent-a-music scheme is that I'm against DRM, and "renting" music is only playing to the majors' rythms, and I hate that. Personally, I have nothing against differing business schemes, so long as they don't destroy our freedoms...
I have been a Nap to go customer for about 3 years which equals to about $540 for all the music I want old and new. I have no issues with DRM as it gives me unlimited music for a very low price.
So itunes is fast on Mac but slow on PC? Strange that they will do that because Mac has a very weak market share so all those Ipod users have to settle for a slow blaothed software to sync their music. Like I said the thing can't even monitor a folder like it's 1989.
AI is losing all credibility to me having such a fanboy
"Despite the hype, the Zune HD appears to have failed before even hitting the market"
is that why zune 32 is outselling itouch 32 on amazon?
"LCDs: a typical maximum output of 200cd/m^2 compared to around 4-500 for mid-range"
does itouch output that high? NO
"Tegra is also being hyped as providing "8 processing cores,""
is that why itouch still uses technology that came out almost 7 years ago?
and for your INFO, iphone color is much more brilliant than itouch
"NVIDIA promotes Tegra as being "Ultra Low Power," but its standard ARM11 CPU doesn't deliver anything that isn't available in other ARM designs, nor any special power savings over more powerful and modern processors like the Coretex-A8 in the iPhone 3GS and latest iPod touch. "
is that why zune had 50% more battery life than itouch when it comes to video playback?
cry all you want
there is NO significant different between itouch 2g and itouch 3g
itouch's graphic is worse than iphone
battery life is much greater than anything that apple can offer
nano's video quality is worse than the lowest flip $100 video recorder (i might add 10 times worse)
and finally, thanks for a great article, it shows the fear in your eyes
if you had no fear, you wouldn't have written this article
Incorrect the iPod 16Gb and 32GB are in no 1 and no2 positions, the Zune is 3rd.
Prince McLean/Daniel Eran makes reading Apple Insider a waste of time.
AI is losing all credibility to me having such a fanboy
Totally agree. This smear is very sad to see.
That they downplay Tegra and OLED should be evident of the intentions of Daniel and company to even the slowest person. Really if the iTouch is so great(it is) then why write such an article.
This is so insulting to AI's readers.
Actually, I was sort of pointing to the fact that the sloppiness in his thinking and arguments were evidenced by the use of lazy words like 'itouch.' I was perhaps being too pithy, and probably should have elaborated.....
Are you complaining about the lack of the capitalization, or the name shortening in general?
I want to break my Macbook and burn my iPhone after reading this article. Its reasons why I'm sometimes ashamed to use Apple products and be in any form associated with Apple fanbois.
This article is complete lies. This just proves how scared you really are of the Zune.
All in all I welcome the competition and the Zune HD does so much right. All this proves is you are scared and the Zune HD will sell very well. If you thought Microsoft would keep the '1 %' of the market, you would not have wasted your time making up lies.
People said the exact same thing when Microsoft first came out with the Zune and look at what happened, the Zune was a failure...
First off, Microsoft gave the Zune HD a new OLED display. OLED is an interesting new technology that uses a layer of electroluminescent organic compounds, rather than the inorganic materials used in traditional LCDs, to produce an image. OLED panels don't require a backlight, so they can render true blacks and provide a higher contrast ratio.
I actually have a little background in this, so let me take a whack at it...
Traditional LCD screens produce a color image by selectively filtering down a white light source, the backlight. As the name implies, the backlight lies at the back of the screen, and fires forward toward the viewer. Most backlights use CCFL tubes, while those on high-end televisions sometimes use LEDs instead.
Of the total amount of light produced, only a tiny fraction makes it through the entire screen. The filtering starts by removing over 1/2 of the light that's not polarized in the right direction. It then flows through a series of colored filters, LCD shutters and another polarizer on the front. In a typical display, only about 10% of the light at the back of the screen reaches the viewer.
LED's produce light directly on their front surface in the color you want, so almost 100% of the light they produce reaches your eye. Modern devices are more efficient than a CCFL as well, so the amount of energy needed to produce any given image is much lower for LEDs than LCDs. Unfortunately, traditional LEDs are fairly large, and not really suitable for television-like displays.
Into this void steps the OLED, which uses a printable technology that can scale down to useful sizes. Although the OLED is not efficient as the traditional LED, the overall end-to-end performance is still much better than an LCD of the same brightness. OLED screens require about 1/2 as much power as an LCD to display an all-white image (the most efficient image one an LCD can display) and are generally much more efficient as most images contain colors or graduations in brightness.
There, that is an accurate description of the technologies involved.
However, today's OLED panels are much dimmer than standard issue LCDs
No, SOME of today's OLED panels are. Others are much brigher. Seeing as you didn't actually see the Zune and based your entire article on supposition from a photo series on Engaget, let's turn to someone that actually has seen the new device, Ars:
3.3 inch OLED screen: Sure, we knew all about it, but how does it look? With a unit in our grubby little hands, we can confidently say it looks pretty damn good. Colors are saturated and the screen is terrifically bright?so much so that even my dad (!) commented after seeing the device begin playing its demo movie.
Everything I've heard states in normal use it is much brighter than the iPhone. It is entirely possible that it has problems outdoors, likely even, but the iPhone is hardly perfect here either.
There are other problems with OLED. They don't last long,
They last more than long enough for a device that is essentially disposable over a period of 2 to 3 years.
And despite the power savings attributed to OLED's backlight-free design, OLEDs still use more power than LCD displays most of the time because the OLED technology consumes power based on how bright the image it is displaying is. Essentially, OLED is the backlight.
This statement is absolutely false. OLED screens use, less power than an LCD of the same size and brightness. Period. Can I put numbers to this? Sure:
http://displaydaily.com/2009/07/09/w...-tvs-be-green/
This post suggests they will use about 30% of the power of the equivalent CCFL backlit LCD, like the one in the iPhone.
"Considering it's got an energy-saving OLED screen, we were disappointed with the battery life of the Jet. Perhaps the powerful processor puts some extra drain on the juice, but the promised 180 minutes of talk time and 250 hours' standby translated into a barely a day of moderate use."
And they guessed it was the processor, which strikes me as just as informed as your guess. Of course, it could be neither of these things.
If you're wondering why Apple, which sells tens of millions of mobile devices per year
Perhaps it's because Apple sells millions of devices a year, and current production lines can't handle that load. Whereas MS, which sells perhaps 1/20th the number, doesn't present any particular strain.
Your knowledge of the OLED market appears as limited as your knowledge of its technology.
Maury
This article is complete lies. This just proves how scared you really are of the Zune.
No, that's going too far, just like this article. Really, all it demonstrates is the poor quality of reporting in this article, nothing more.
Maury
Guess you fall into the "mindless Apple Sheep" comment above. Keep buying something for its logo and not its features.
Would you please tell me how you deduce that from anything I've said?
People on this forum want me to stop buying Apple products.
What?! You are on weed!
I actually have a little background in this, so let me take a whack at it...
Traditional LCD screens produce a color image by selectively filtering down a white light source, the backlight. As the name implies, the backlight lies at the back of the screen, and fires forward toward the viewer. Most backlights use CCFL tubes, while those on high-end televisions sometimes use LEDs instead.
Of the total amount of light produced, only a tiny fraction makes it through the entire screen. The filtering starts by removing over 1/2 of the light that's not polarized in the right direction. It then flows through a series of colored filters, LCD shutters and another polarizer on the front. In a typical display, only about 10% of the light at the back of the screen reaches the viewer.
LED's produce light directly on their front surface in the color you want, so almost 100% of the light they produce reaches your eye. Modern devices are more efficient than a CCFL as well, so the amount of energy needed to produce any given image is much lower for LEDs than LCDs. Unfortunately, traditional LEDs are fairly large, and not really suitable for television-like displays.
Into this void steps the OLED, which uses a printable technology that can scale down to useful sizes. Although the OLED is not efficient as the traditional LED, the overall end-to-end performance is still much better than an LCD of the same brightness. OLED screens require about 1/2 as much power as an LCD to display an all-white image (the most efficient image one an LCD can display) and are generally much more efficient as most images contain colors or graduations in brightness.
There, that is an accurate description of the technologies involved.
No, SOME of today's OLED panels are. Others are much brigher. Seeing as you didn't actually see the Zune and based your entire article on supposition from a photo series on Engaget, let's turn to someone that actually has seen the new device, Ars:
Everything I've heard states in normal use it is much brighter than the iPhone. It is entirely possible that it has problems outdoors, likely even, but the iPhone is hardly perfect here either.
They last more than long enough for a device that is essentially disposable over a period of 2 to 3 years.
This statement is absolutely false. OLED screens use, less power than an LCD of the same size and brightness. Period. Can I put numbers to this? Sure:
http://displaydaily.com/2009/07/09/w...-tvs-be-green/
This post suggests they will use about 30% of the power of the equivalent CCFL backlit LCD, like the one in the iPhone.
"Considering it's got an energy-saving OLED screen, we were disappointed with the battery life of the Jet. Perhaps the powerful processor puts some extra drain on the juice, but the promised 180 minutes of talk time and 250 hours' standby translated into a barely a day of moderate use."
And they guessed it was the processor, which strikes me as just as informed as your guess. Of course, it could be neither of these things.
Perhaps it's because Apple sells millions of devices a year, and current production lines can't handle that load. Whereas MS, which sells perhaps 1/20th the number, doesn't present any particular strain.
Your knowledge of the OLED market appears as limited as your knowledge of its technology.
Maury
Great even-handed post! Nice to hear some voices of reason.
This statement is absolutely false. OLED screens use, less power than an LCD of the same size and brightness. Period. Can I put numbers to this? Sure:
http://displaydaily.com/2009/07/09/w...-tvs-be-green/
This post suggests they will use about 30% of the power of the equivalent CCFL backlit LCD, like the one in the iPhone.
erm, all very interesting but the iPhone used LED backlighting for the LCD not CCFL just like the majority of mobiles and smartphones have for the past 5+ years.
But of course you knew this seeing as you know a 'little' something about this.