Of course OLED is coming to Apple products, but these posts make it sound like it's expected in the next revision.
I think we'll see it in a smaller device first, like a higher-end, higher-capacity iPhone, before we see it in any Mac product.
Exactly, and that's what I was getting at. I would be highly surprised if it showed up in the iPhone's next revision. In 2 revisions, that's an entirely different story.
But lets consider what a 3.5" OLED iPhone screen might cost today. Right now the only available OLED screen of any good quality is on Sony's 11" OLED tv. Sony's listed MSRP is $2500. Let's also say that Sony has a 40% markup built into this price (which is reasonable to think).
$1800 cost base + $700 markup = $2500
Now lets say the actual screen portion of Sony's tv represents the major bulk of the cost (again, reasonable to think, because screens typically do represent the largest cost, especially something like OLED), and we arrive at $1200.
Take the 11" screen and divide it 3.5 ways. That comes to 3.14
$1200/3.14 = $382 for a 3.5" OLED screen, per Sony's cost. Now granted, LG will be supplying Apple with LCD screens, but the costs should be fairly similar, especially at this early stage of OLED development. Bulk purchases aside, as well as the difference between what a same size LED and OLED screen costs, the cost would be a lot for either AT&T or Apple (or both) to eat (on top of what they already eat) at this time in order to keep the iPhone at the same retail price.
I just don't think OLED is in the cards at the current time. But it will happen... eventually.
Going by the quality of their flat panel TVs, I think Samsung has the edge in quality over LG.
So I bought a Sony :-) which was stand out tops.
Does anyone know of a website where monitors are tested?
I'm not sure about monitor testing but I'm in the electronics manufacturing business. I can assure you that Samsung makes Sony's displays on the same production lines.
It is a touchy situation that Samsung and Sony only discess off the reord.
In the post easy credit era Apple's $25 billion cash hoard is going to be a huge competitive advantage. In this deal they simply take 2% of their cash and make a prepayment that will presumably give them first dibs and best pricing on all the cool stuff from LG coming down the pike. That's a strategic use of their reserves and I'd give anything to know how else they plan to use it. I don't think there is any company out there that is looking as many moves ahead as Apple.
There going to Apple brand the LG Wrist Phone. Wow. The Apple IDick phone, for Dick Tracy of course, for those old enough to understand and wanted one since we were kids. Yowsa.... how neat was the wrist radios!
$1200/3.14 = $382 for a 3.5" OLED screen, per Sony's cost.
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.)
It is certainly feasible that if Apple spreads out the iPhone into 3 models, small (nano?), medium (= current), large (= new top model), that said top model could use an OLED display in the next revision.
The problem I see is not prices but volume production.
Now lets say the actual screen portion of Sony's tv represents the major bulk of the cost (again, reasonable to think, because screens typically do represent the largest cost, especially something like OLED), and we arrive at $1200.
Take the 11" screen and divide it 3.5 ways. That comes to 3.14
$1200/3.14 = $382 for a 3.5" OLED screen, per Sony's cost. Now granted, LG will be supplying Apple with LCD screens, but the costs should be fairly similar, especially at this early stage of OLED development. Bulk purchases aside, as well as the difference between what a same size LED and OLED screen costs, the cost would be a lot for either AT&T or Apple (or both) to eat (on top of what they already eat) at this time in order to keep the iPhone at the same retail price.
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.
So a 3.5" OLED screen costs between $50 and $150. IIRC, the current iPhone display is around $25. It's a bit more expensive, but the advantages are so many that I would not be surprised if very soon (six months) a high-end iteration of the iPhone would indeed have an OLED screen. If so, then IMHO this is the real point of the deal, since for conventional LCD screens it will be a buyer's market for the foreseeable future.
So from one XEL-1 OLED panel you can cut about 3.375 iPhone panels. (Although technically it's not the same process as cutting LCD panels.)
The math would be $900 / 3.375 = $267.
But again, the XEL-1 was introduced in 2007 in Japan, and surely OLED manufacturing and pricing changed since. Hence my guess would be $200 in today's OLED technology would seem reasonable. And at the iPhone's volume it should be lots cheaper still.
anyone thinking OLEDs in Apple Products will appear in anything other than iPod/iPhones first are quite mistaken.
Still, dreaming of an Air with a 14" OLED whats not to drool over
I expect OLED in Apple phones or pad-like devices this year, but I'm not holding my breath for an OLED notebook just yet. At least not as a base configuration. But I wouldn't be completly surprised if they do like with the SSD, and offer OLED as a high-priced luxury option for the kind of people who can afford it and must have the latest thing.
I can see it now, a polished gray anodized titanium Air with a 14" OLED screen, SSD, and 4GB, modestly priced at $3999. A $999 option could be a ballistic kevlar insert to fill the space where the LCD screen used to be. Handy for the stylish war correspondent or design-conscious contractor working in Iraq.
I wouldn't bet on it. Maintream OLED is still at least a couple years away. Sony's 11" OLED panel is still retailing for a cool $2,500, and LG's 15" is sure to garner more. Plus, Sony demo'ed a 27" OLED panel at CES (enormous for OLED at this point in time, but still quite small for panel sizes), and their response was basically no one could dream of affording this right now- it is only on display as a glimpse of things to come. Even at sizes like those of the iPhone, an OLED LCD screen would jack up the retail price tremendously...
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?
If so... Couldn´t it be something else entirely? As for example, getting the "edge" over the competition, by introducing these "OLED panels"?
You are counting pixels, but area is more important than pixels, since the pixels are not individually manufactured. The same amount of substrate as for an 11" screen yields more than nine screens. Also, the smaller screens will have a better manufacturing yield.
You are counting pixels, but area is more important than pixels
How so?
The expensive part of OLEDs is not the active matrix technology but the organic compounds making up the pixels. As well as the tech to ensure these are air tight. So IMHO each pixel counts and the number of pixels would drive the OLED price. But of course number of pixels and area size might not correlate.
The amount of chemical compounds used depends on pixel spacing as well as pixel size. Neither of which we really know for the XEL-1 and current iPhone display. Could very well be that the iPhone requires denser pixels with less spacing, i.e. more chemical compounds than a similar surface area on the XEL-1.
But if it all points to being cheaper than more expensive - then the better!
Would be nice to see a MacBook Air 2 with super thin screen - and longer battery life.
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...
You're living in dreamland if you think adding an OLED display to the MacBook Air would make it 1/4" thinner. Dreamland. The glass and the aluminum take up the majority of the current display thickness, that wouldn't change no matter the technology in between. Thinner yes, maybe, but not thinner like you imagine. More like "a hair thinner". At the end of the day thickness isn't the issue with these notebooks, or the iPhone. It's contrast. The contrast on the iPhone's display is positively the worst thing about the phone (I have been beating this drum for nearly a year now), its display is big for a phone, an OLED display will make the display the phone best feature, currently it's the phones weakest link.
But I guess the actual surface area, i.e. amount of chemical compounds used, depends on pixel spacing and pixel size. Neither of which we really know. Could very well be that the iPhone requires denser pixels with less spacing.
If pixels were the cost driver, then large OLED screens would not be prohibitive. But they are.
If pixels were the cost driver, then large OLED screens would not be prohibitive. But they are.
The problem with producing larger panels is the fault ratio. If one (or a few) pixels are malfunctioning the whole big panel needs to be dumped.
As number of faults are related to number of pixels it is much harder to manufacture a completely flawless screen with lots of pixels.
Large OLEDs would be easier to produce with lower resolutions, but I don't think anyone buying a 25+" OLED would accept anything lower res than 1080p HD.
But I understand what you're meaning. Should a larger OLED display have larger pixels, it needs more chemical compound material and would likely be more expensive than a smaller display with the same number of pixels but smaller pixels.
Anyhow, let's bring on some OLED displays! Hope it happens this year. At least in one model.
It's certainly encouraging to see OQO take the title of 'First PC with OLED display'. It's a start that hopefully challenges others to follow suit.
And it's no coincidence that OQO is considered a high-end mobile PC manufacturer. Not unlike Apple.
Comments
Now maybe I can expect a new 23" LCD Cinema Display.
I expect Apple to get into the television set business with built-in AppleTV and PVR.
since LG is doing the netflix thing...
when is Apple going to buy netflix?
I'm just wondering...
since LG is doing the netflix thing...
when is Apple going to buy netflix?
Never. It would be redundant. Apple doesn't need to mail
DVD nor do they need to stream (other than the streaming for a rental)
Quite honestly there's a possibility that Apple could be interested in making a
HDTV but odds are likely against it right now. I say this because networking
was a common theme amongst the CES '09 mid to high end displays. In fact
not only did we see networking but there is increased interest in upscaling tech.
I imagine that an Apple designed HDTV could have a nice screen with ATV UI and
even Dashboard widget support. Apple would also include upscaling technology which
would take SD and HD iTunes content and give them the edge they need to look great
I don't think we're going to see 1080p for a long time from Apple.
Of course OLED is coming to Apple products, but these posts make it sound like it's expected in the next revision.
I think we'll see it in a smaller device first, like a higher-end, higher-capacity iPhone, before we see it in any Mac product.
Exactly, and that's what I was getting at. I would be highly surprised if it showed up in the iPhone's next revision. In 2 revisions, that's an entirely different story.
But lets consider what a 3.5" OLED iPhone screen might cost today. Right now the only available OLED screen of any good quality is on Sony's 11" OLED tv. Sony's listed MSRP is $2500. Let's also say that Sony has a 40% markup built into this price (which is reasonable to think).
$1800 cost base + $700 markup = $2500
Now lets say the actual screen portion of Sony's tv represents the major bulk of the cost (again, reasonable to think, because screens typically do represent the largest cost, especially something like OLED), and we arrive at $1200.
Take the 11" screen and divide it 3.5 ways. That comes to 3.14
$1200/3.14 = $382 for a 3.5" OLED screen, per Sony's cost. Now granted, LG will be supplying Apple with LCD screens, but the costs should be fairly similar, especially at this early stage of OLED development. Bulk purchases aside, as well as the difference between what a same size LED and OLED screen costs, the cost would be a lot for either AT&T or Apple (or both) to eat (on top of what they already eat) at this time in order to keep the iPhone at the same retail price.
I just don't think OLED is in the cards at the current time. But it will happen... eventually.
Going by the quality of their flat panel TVs, I think Samsung has the edge in quality over LG.
So I bought a Sony :-) which was stand out tops.
Does anyone know of a website where monitors are tested?
I'm not sure about monitor testing but I'm in the electronics manufacturing business. I can assure you that Samsung makes Sony's displays on the same production lines.
It is a touchy situation that Samsung and Sony only discess off the reord.
$1200/3.14 = $382 for a 3.5" OLED screen, per Sony's cost.
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.)
It is certainly feasible that if Apple spreads out the iPhone into 3 models, small (nano?), medium (= current), large (= new top model), that said top model could use an OLED display in the next revision.
The problem I see is not prices but volume production.
$1800 cost base + $700 markup = $2500
Now lets say the actual screen portion of Sony's tv represents the major bulk of the cost (again, reasonable to think, because screens typically do represent the largest cost, especially something like OLED), and we arrive at $1200.
Take the 11" screen and divide it 3.5 ways. That comes to 3.14
$1200/3.14 = $382 for a 3.5" OLED screen, per Sony's cost. Now granted, LG will be supplying Apple with LCD screens, but the costs should be fairly similar, especially at this early stage of OLED development. Bulk purchases aside, as well as the difference between what a same size LED and OLED screen costs, the cost would be a lot for either AT&T or Apple (or both) to eat (on top of what they already eat) at this time in order to keep the iPhone at the same retail price.
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.
So a 3.5" OLED screen costs between $50 and $150. IIRC, the current iPhone display is around $25. It's a bit more expensive, but the advantages are so many that I would not be surprised if very soon (six months) a high-end iteration of the iPhone would indeed have an OLED screen. If so, then IMHO this is the real point of the deal, since for conventional LCD screens it will be a buyer's market for the foreseeable future.
An 11" diagonal screen has room for 9 (NINE), not three 3.5" screens. $900 / 9 = $100.
Um, probably no.
The XEL-1 has a native resolution of 960x540, that's 518,400 pixel.
The iPhone's 320x480 screen has 153,600 pixel.
So from one XEL-1 OLED panel you can cut about 3.375 iPhone panels. (Although technically it's not the same process as cutting LCD panels.)
The math would be $900 / 3.375 = $267.
But again, the XEL-1 was introduced in 2007 in Japan, and surely OLED manufacturing and pricing changed since. Hence my guess would be $200 in today's OLED technology would seem reasonable. And at the iPhone's volume it should be lots cheaper still.
anyone thinking OLEDs in Apple Products will appear in anything other than iPod/iPhones first are quite mistaken.
Still, dreaming of an Air with a 14" OLED whats not to drool over
I expect OLED in Apple phones or pad-like devices this year, but I'm not holding my breath for an OLED notebook just yet. At least not as a base configuration. But I wouldn't be completly surprised if they do like with the SSD, and offer OLED as a high-priced luxury option for the kind of people who can afford it and must have the latest thing.
I can see it now, a polished gray anodized titanium Air with a 14" OLED screen, SSD, and 4GB, modestly priced at $3999. A $999 option could be a ballistic kevlar insert to fill the space where the LCD screen used to be. Handy for the stylish war correspondent or design-conscious contractor working in Iraq.
I wouldn't bet on it. Maintream OLED is still at least a couple years away. Sony's 11" OLED panel is still retailing for a cool $2,500, and LG's 15" is sure to garner more. Plus, Sony demo'ed a 27" OLED panel at CES (enormous for OLED at this point in time, but still quite small for panel sizes), and their response was basically no one could dream of affording this right now- it is only on display as a glimpse of things to come. Even at sizes like those of the iPhone, an OLED LCD screen would jack up the retail price tremendously...
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?
If so... Couldn´t it be something else entirely? As for example, getting the "edge" over the competition, by introducing these "OLED panels"?
Just a thought...
Um, probably no.
The math would be $900 / 3.375 = $267.
You are counting pixels, but area is more important than pixels, since the pixels are not individually manufactured. The same amount of substrate as for an 11" screen yields more than nine screens. Also, the smaller screens will have a better manufacturing yield.
You are counting pixels, but area is more important than pixels
How so?
The expensive part of OLEDs is not the active matrix technology but the organic compounds making up the pixels. As well as the tech to ensure these are air tight. So IMHO each pixel counts and the number of pixels would drive the OLED price. But of course number of pixels and area size might not correlate.
The amount of chemical compounds used depends on pixel spacing as well as pixel size. Neither of which we really know for the XEL-1 and current iPhone display. Could very well be that the iPhone requires denser pixels with less spacing, i.e. more chemical compounds than a similar surface area on the XEL-1.
But if it all points to being cheaper than more expensive - then the better!
Would be nice to see a MacBook Air 2 with super thin screen - and longer battery life.
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...
You're living in dreamland if you think adding an OLED display to the MacBook Air would make it 1/4" thinner. Dreamland. The glass and the aluminum take up the majority of the current display thickness, that wouldn't change no matter the technology in between. Thinner yes, maybe, but not thinner like you imagine. More like "a hair thinner". At the end of the day thickness isn't the issue with these notebooks, or the iPhone. It's contrast. The contrast on the iPhone's display is positively the worst thing about the phone (I have been beating this drum for nearly a year now), its display is big for a phone, an OLED display will make the display the phone best feature, currently it's the phones weakest link.
How so?
But I guess the actual surface area, i.e. amount of chemical compounds used, depends on pixel spacing and pixel size. Neither of which we really know. Could very well be that the iPhone requires denser pixels with less spacing.
If pixels were the cost driver, then large OLED screens would not be prohibitive. But they are.
anyone thinking OLEDs in Apple Products will appear in anything other than iPod/iPhones first are quite mistaken.
Still, dreaming of an Air with a 14" OLED whats not to drool over
Considering the Air has a 13" display, you must be dreaming.
If pixels were the cost driver, then large OLED screens would not be prohibitive. But they are.
The problem with producing larger panels is the fault ratio. If one (or a few) pixels are malfunctioning the whole big panel needs to be dumped.
As number of faults are related to number of pixels it is much harder to manufacture a completely flawless screen with lots of pixels.
Large OLEDs would be easier to produce with lower resolutions, but I don't think anyone buying a 25+" OLED would accept anything lower res than 1080p HD.
But I understand what you're meaning. Should a larger OLED display have larger pixels, it needs more chemical compound material and would likely be more expensive than a smaller display with the same number of pixels but smaller pixels.
Anyhow, let's bring on some OLED displays! Hope it happens this year. At least in one model.
It's certainly encouraging to see OQO take the title of 'First PC with OLED display'. It's a start that hopefully challenges others to follow suit.
And it's no coincidence that OQO is considered a high-end mobile PC manufacturer. Not unlike Apple.