And how will that be any different from everyone else? When they become affordable every TV panel manufacturer and computer company on the planet will be using them. That's a given Nostradamus.
lepton probably meant that Apple would go there sooner than most other manufacturers (as Apple can ask premium prices for premium hardware specs - not unlike OQO).
Just seeing the new possibilities OLEDs offer like Samsung's super-thin semi-transparent OLED films that will likely show up on car windscreens soon (for in-view GPS navigation etc.), or bendable, non-square screens like in Sony's bracelet MP3 player prototype, makes me really appreciate the new technology.
It will change products in ways we haven't even started to grasp yet. Think moving advertisements on cereal boxes, windows becoming TV screens, displays embedded in any shape or object, let alone new lighting designs like the whole ceiling being one thin, flat light source capable of shining light in any pattern imaginable.
For people interested in emerging OLED products, here are two news feeds I like:
You combined Sony's gross profit plus retail markup, plus shipping to the store as a finished product, etc. The manufacturing cost of the unit is almost never more than half of MSRP. So at most $1200. The display itself would then be around $900.
But your division is the real problem. We are talking about area, not a linear dimension. An 11" diagonal screen has room for 9 (NINE), not three 3.5" screens. $900 / 9 = $100.
Yea, looking back, I realize that my math was a bit off since I wasn't using the area. That's what I get for posting during work
But you're wrong about Sony's price. $2500 is the MSRP by Sony. Go look on their website. And where do you get the notion that a product's cost is never more than half of its MSRP? If you're telling me Sony is making greater than 100% profit (i.e. their markup) relative to cost, I have to laugh, especially when its a relatively new technology like OLED where application has been limited up until now. Case in point: look at Sony's PS3. They sell those at a loss, but they do so because there are other benefits to producing the best that technology has to offer. Your cost of $900 for Sony's OLED screen is way off base.
Apple is so smart with its money. I really like how they think ahead...way ahead.
Maybe Apple TV will be actual TV? 32", 47" 56" perhaps
If Apple goes OLED, its gonna be the end to all other competitors for sometime.
LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafe
I would bet on it. Apple is the company that put SSD in when people said
no one could dream of affording it and it was for the distant future. Now we see
SSD prices fallling. I'm not saying Apple gets all the credit for bringing us the
future faster, but I think they smell the future a bit better than other companies and
jump on it. That has to help.
OLED is a huge step forward. I for one will be happy to see it in Apple products
before the others come along and look like copy-cats. This is one reason Apple
keeps their product lines pricey -- it allows them to afford to include stuff that's
so new it's not anywhere else yet. When they do that, the new stuff gets spread
around pretty fast. We all benefit. Apple benefits too, because they had it first,
and showed the way.
My US$ 0.02.
WTF? Are you trying to re-write history. There were SEVERAL laptop manufacturers selling units with SSD drives BEFORE Apple. Go back and read some of the posts when Apple first offered SSD to gain some perspective.
Actually I'm hoping that this is a sign that more than the Cinema displays are coming. New iMac should be high on the list.
I'm also hoping that maybe this might be a hint at a Cinema display with a built in TV tuner. This could really add value to Apples expensive products and makes a lot of sense on larger high resolution displays. The trick of course is to avoid compromising the quality of either input signal. Let's face it if you shell out multiple thousands of dollars for let's say a 30" screen you want that screen to be as functional as possible.
I also take an interest in the mention of the smaller displays. One way to look at this is that this foretells a handheld product from Apple that isn't on the market yet.
It's a nice idea, but if it's a computer monitor, it's better to have the tuner connected to the computer, not the monitor. Computer monitors make for expensive TVs.
In the interest of disclosure, I did buy a 25.5" Samsung monitor with a TV tuner a couple weeks ago, but the TV tuner wasn't the reason that I bought it, it was the variety and number of inputs. The Samsungs are the only ones I know of that are like that, having a computer monitor panel rather than a TV panel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lepton
Hey, guess what? LG is a big player in the emerging OLED market.
Check out the LG announcements, they are putting out a 15" OLED panel starting about now. Think about that in the lid of a MacBook Air, making it a quarter of an inch thinner, lower power, brighter even in sunlight, 180 degree viewing angle...
And with lifetime and the blue color problems just about solved for good, this is the time.
Here is what else will happen: OLED in the iPhone, iPod Touch, and NetPad! Maybe even this Summer. Thinner, lighter devices at lower power. What's a NetPad? My prediction for Apple's next new device, not a netbook, not exactly a tablet, flat with a 7.75" screen. I have a detailed article at myallo.com/blog
OLED is where Apple will go, as prices come down.
Prices will go down, but I don't expect production capacity to meet Apple's needs coming so soon. Also, LG's new 15" TV is slated to have a $2500 price tag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
I agree. I think most people don't understand the significance of OLED yet. Apple, because it sells higher-priced products, will be able to introduce OLED earlier than cut-rate commodity PC producers. A contract like this can only help further that along.
OLED could make the Air thinner, but I think an even better use would be to give it a larger screen using the current cover. With OLED, a 14.1" screen would fit easily, and draw less power.
A curious thing about OLED is that we go back to one CRT characteristic, where dark images use less power (this doesn't happen with LCD), so a very low power draw could be achieved with the screen on; for instance a screensaver app showing a small clock moving around the screen.
In the handheld space, OLED will have a huge impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
Back in 1999 Apple invested $100 million in Samsung for similar reasons.
I think Apple invested in LG to get a multi-year exclusive on 30" panels too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT
That's likely no longer true.
If an 800x480 OLED OQO + 1.86GHz Atom CPU + 2GB RAM + 120GB HD + WiFi + BluTooth + touch screen + HDMI out + magnesium alloy case + LiIon battery + Windows Vista Business license = $1499 then surely a 320x480 OLED on its own would cost no more than $200 in volume production. (Assuming that OQO actually makes a profit on those $1499 UMPCs.)
Making small displays is easier, getting 100,000 out of 100,000 pixels right is easier than 2 million out of 2 million. A 13" screen with one defective pixel has to be discarded or sold as a lower grade panel. If they made nine 4" screens in the same area with one defect, they would have eight displays and only chuck one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macfabulous
Remember back when Apple made a statement about an upcoming "product transition", that would affect future profit margins and cause Apple earnings to come in lower than expected. I think it was back in July.
Everyone assumed that the "Unibody Structure" for the new MacBooks where that "product transition". Apple actually never told anybody that this actually was THE "product transition" REFERED to. They told anyone how proud they where of this new technology, but nothing about further costs regarding the new process. That was only assumed, by "us" and the media. Am I not correct?
I don't think so because it's the time scale. I recall that warning was for something happening the next quarter, not the next year.
Apple would be better off buying TiVo for AppleTV. Then it really gives AppleTV a real advantage as it would not only provide access to movies and HD content, but also enable users to record to the device (DVR).
Apple would be better off buying TiVo for AppleTV. Then it really gives AppleTV a real advantage as it would not only provide access to movies and HD content, but also enable users to record to the device (DVR).
I read the "Apple should make a DVR" comments on forums quite often. I have some questions about such a stategy:
• How would it affect their traffic on iTS?
• How would it affect their iTS TV show sales?
• How would it affect their relationship with the networks?
• If you were representing a network during the negotiations, would you have not made a stipulation that Apple couldn't actively support DVRs?
• Is TiVo profitable enough to warrant being purchased by Apple?
• Doesn't Apple have enough experience, resources and clout to make their own DVR without having to buy TiVo, or are there some patents involved with basic timeshidting that TiVo owns?
Case in point: look at Sony's PS3. They sell those at a loss, but they do so because there are other benefits to producing the best that technology has to offer. Your cost of $900 for Sony's OLED screen is way off base.
Hardly a comparable situation. The PS3 is an entry point for further sales to feed it, in the form of games and bluray disks. Not to mention the fact that it was the main reason they defeated HD DVD.
But there are no such additional revenue sources from selling an OLED TV. It requires no modules, software, special resolution content, nothing. There is no "OLED format". The product has to justify its sales cost.
Also, we are looking for component prices. A 100% gross markup from component prices is reasonable. This is a distinct and lower cost from the final assembled and packaged product cost, which is may be what you are thinking about.
I hope LG gets rid of the gradient displays that have been on the iMac 24"
Why would Apple go with LG again? PRICE!
Samsung is so much better.
Not true. The panels Apple gets from LG.Philips are IPS panels, which are the most expensive panel type found in consumer LCDs. The PVA and TN panels made by Samsung are cheaper, so price is not a reason to go with LG.Philips.
What is the reason that Apple uses IPS panels is that they have better color accuracy and better viewing angles than the other panel types. PVA does have some advantages, but IPS is generally considered the more high-end panel type, and LG.Philips is the company that makes them.
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with Apple's existing lineup of displays. They're great monitors, they use top-of-the-line panels, and they're pretty much the best available for the market segment they're aimed at. The only new things you'll get when Apple updates their displays are an obnoxious shiny piece of glass covering the screen, loss of the FireWire hub, and that weird Mini-DisplayPort connector.
Comments
OLED is where Apple will go, as prices come down.
And how will that be any different from everyone else? When they become affordable every TV panel manufacturer and computer company on the planet will be using them. That's a given Nostradamus.
Considering the Air has a 13" display, you must be dreaming.
The point is that with OLED a 14" display would fit, changing no dimensions except the width of the bezel.
Just seeing the new possibilities OLEDs offer like Samsung's super-thin semi-transparent OLED films that will likely show up on car windscreens soon (for in-view GPS navigation etc.), or bendable, non-square screens like in Sony's bracelet MP3 player prototype, makes me really appreciate the new technology.
It will change products in ways we haven't even started to grasp yet. Think moving advertisements on cereal boxes, windows becoming TV screens, displays embedded in any shape or object, let alone new lighting designs like the whole ceiling being one thin, flat light source capable of shining light in any pattern imaginable.
For people interested in emerging OLED products, here are two news feeds I like:
http://www.oled-info.com/
http://www.oled-display.net/
The point is that with OLED a 14" display would fit, changing no dimensions except the width of the bezel.
Maybe.
For people interested in emerging OLED products, here are two news feeds I like:
http://www.oled-info.com/
http://www.oled-display.net/
Yeah, they are good sites for OLED videos and links. I read them a few times. Check out the black levels on the PMP.
Um, no.
You combined Sony's gross profit plus retail markup, plus shipping to the store as a finished product, etc. The manufacturing cost of the unit is almost never more than half of MSRP. So at most $1200. The display itself would then be around $900.
But your division is the real problem. We are talking about area, not a linear dimension. An 11" diagonal screen has room for 9 (NINE), not three 3.5" screens. $900 / 9 = $100.
Yea, looking back, I realize that my math was a bit off since I wasn't using the area. That's what I get for posting during work
But you're wrong about Sony's price. $2500 is the MSRP by Sony. Go look on their website. And where do you get the notion that a product's cost is never more than half of its MSRP?
Not unlike Apple.
You mean like Apple?
Sorry, I couldn't help it.
Apple is so smart with its money. I really like how they think ahead...way ahead.
Maybe Apple TV will be actual TV? 32", 47" 56" perhaps
If Apple goes OLED, its gonna be the end to all other competitors for sometime.
LOL.
I would bet on it. Apple is the company that put SSD in when people said
no one could dream of affording it and it was for the distant future. Now we see
SSD prices fallling. I'm not saying Apple gets all the credit for bringing us the
future faster, but I think they smell the future a bit better than other companies and
jump on it. That has to help.
OLED is a huge step forward. I for one will be happy to see it in Apple products
before the others come along and look like copy-cats. This is one reason Apple
keeps their product lines pricey -- it allows them to afford to include stuff that's
so new it's not anywhere else yet. When they do that, the new stuff gets spread
around pretty fast. We all benefit. Apple benefits too, because they had it first,
and showed the way.
My US$ 0.02.
WTF? Are you trying to re-write history. There were SEVERAL laptop manufacturers selling units with SSD drives BEFORE Apple. Go back and read some of the posts when Apple first offered SSD to gain some perspective.
Actually I'm hoping that this is a sign that more than the Cinema displays are coming. New iMac should be high on the list.
I'm also hoping that maybe this might be a hint at a Cinema display with a built in TV tuner. This could really add value to Apples expensive products and makes a lot of sense on larger high resolution displays. The trick of course is to avoid compromising the quality of either input signal. Let's face it if you shell out multiple thousands of dollars for let's say a 30" screen you want that screen to be as functional as possible.
I also take an interest in the mention of the smaller displays. One way to look at this is that this foretells a handheld product from Apple that isn't on the market yet.
It's a nice idea, but if it's a computer monitor, it's better to have the tuner connected to the computer, not the monitor. Computer monitors make for expensive TVs.
In the interest of disclosure, I did buy a 25.5" Samsung monitor with a TV tuner a couple weeks ago, but the TV tuner wasn't the reason that I bought it, it was the variety and number of inputs. The Samsungs are the only ones I know of that are like that, having a computer monitor panel rather than a TV panel.
Hey, guess what? LG is a big player in the emerging OLED market.
Check out the LG announcements, they are putting out a 15" OLED panel starting about now. Think about that in the lid of a MacBook Air, making it a quarter of an inch thinner, lower power, brighter even in sunlight, 180 degree viewing angle...
And with lifetime and the blue color problems just about solved for good, this is the time.
Here is what else will happen: OLED in the iPhone, iPod Touch, and NetPad! Maybe even this Summer. Thinner, lighter devices at lower power. What's a NetPad? My prediction for Apple's next new device, not a netbook, not exactly a tablet, flat with a 7.75" screen. I have a detailed article at myallo.com/blog
OLED is where Apple will go, as prices come down.
Prices will go down, but I don't expect production capacity to meet Apple's needs coming so soon. Also, LG's new 15" TV is slated to have a $2500 price tag.
I agree. I think most people don't understand the significance of OLED yet. Apple, because it sells higher-priced products, will be able to introduce OLED earlier than cut-rate commodity PC producers. A contract like this can only help further that along.
OLED could make the Air thinner, but I think an even better use would be to give it a larger screen using the current cover. With OLED, a 14.1" screen would fit easily, and draw less power.
A curious thing about OLED is that we go back to one CRT characteristic, where dark images use less power (this doesn't happen with LCD), so a very low power draw could be achieved with the screen on; for instance a screensaver app showing a small clock moving around the screen.
In the handheld space, OLED will have a huge impact.
Back in 1999 Apple invested $100 million in Samsung for similar reasons.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_designs.html
I think Apple invested in LG to get a multi-year exclusive on 30" panels too.
That's likely no longer true.
If an 800x480 OLED OQO + 1.86GHz Atom CPU + 2GB RAM + 120GB HD + WiFi + BluTooth + touch screen + HDMI out + magnesium alloy case + LiIon battery + Windows Vista Business license = $1499 then surely a 320x480 OLED on its own would cost no more than $200 in volume production. (Assuming that OQO actually makes a profit on those $1499 UMPCs.)
Making small displays is easier, getting 100,000 out of 100,000 pixels right is easier than 2 million out of 2 million. A 13" screen with one defective pixel has to be discarded or sold as a lower grade panel. If they made nine 4" screens in the same area with one defect, they would have eight displays and only chuck one.
Remember back when Apple made a statement about an upcoming "product transition", that would affect future profit margins and cause Apple earnings to come in lower than expected. I think it was back in July.
Everyone assumed that the "Unibody Structure" for the new MacBooks where that "product transition". Apple actually never told anybody that this actually was THE "product transition" REFERED to. They told anyone how proud they where of this new technology, but nothing about further costs regarding the new process. That was only assumed, by "us" and the media. Am I not correct?
I don't think so because it's the time scale. I recall that warning was for something happening the next quarter, not the next year.
I'm just wondering...
since LG is doing the netflix thing...
when is Apple going to buy netflix?
Apple would be better off buying TiVo for AppleTV. Then it really gives AppleTV a real advantage as it would not only provide access to movies and HD content, but also enable users to record to the device (DVR).
Apple would be better off buying TiVo for AppleTV. Then it really gives AppleTV a real advantage as it would not only provide access to movies and HD content, but also enable users to record to the device (DVR).
I read the "Apple should make a DVR" comments on forums quite often. I have some questions about such a stategy:
Why would Apple go with LG again? PRICE!
Samsung is so much better.
Case in point: look at Sony's PS3. They sell those at a loss, but they do so because there are other benefits to producing the best that technology has to offer. Your cost of $900 for Sony's OLED screen is way off base.
Hardly a comparable situation. The PS3 is an entry point for further sales to feed it, in the form of games and bluray disks. Not to mention the fact that it was the main reason they defeated HD DVD.
But there are no such additional revenue sources from selling an OLED TV. It requires no modules, software, special resolution content, nothing. There is no "OLED format". The product has to justify its sales cost.
Also, we are looking for component prices. A 100% gross markup from component prices is reasonable. This is a distinct and lower cost from the final assembled and packaged product cost, which is may be what you are thinking about.
I hope LG gets rid of the gradient displays that have been on the iMac 24"
Why would Apple go with LG again? PRICE!
Samsung is so much better.
Not true. The panels Apple gets from LG.Philips are IPS panels, which are the most expensive panel type found in consumer LCDs. The PVA and TN panels made by Samsung are cheaper, so price is not a reason to go with LG.Philips.
What is the reason that Apple uses IPS panels is that they have better color accuracy and better viewing angles than the other panel types. PVA does have some advantages, but IPS is generally considered the more high-end panel type, and LG.Philips is the company that makes them.
Oh, and there's nothing wrong with Apple's existing lineup of displays. They're great monitors, they use top-of-the-line panels, and they're pretty much the best available for the market segment they're aimed at. The only new things you'll get when Apple updates their displays are an obnoxious shiny piece of glass covering the screen, loss of the FireWire hub, and that weird Mini-DisplayPort connector.