I thought the whole point of OLED was that they was going to be so much better and cheaper to make. Do I have this confused with something else or was there some unforeseen expense in making these that they didn't know about ahead of time?
@maven2k: No one said they would be cheaper initially. The reason they are important is because they are the future of television which means they will eventually get cheaper. Currently, they are extremely expensive but have amazing picture quality.
I must be far behind the group but why are this OLED Tv's so hard to produce in big sizes. I mean, certinly price and public interest isn't so high outside the techie comunity, but if there's market for a 150" TV certainly there is for a 40 incher OLED tv
@MyNameIsTooAwesome: It's not so much that making larger sizes is inherently difficult, it's that production yield varies greatly, thus increasing the cost exponentially as you attempt to create larger substrates for larger screens.
Additionally, the organic compounds that produce color in OLED screens have different lifetimes, with the blue-producing organics having shorter lives by a factor of 10. While this may be acceptable for smallter devices that have quicker turnovers, such as cellphones and PMPs, people expect TVs to have longer lives without dramatic shifts in color saturation and purity.
Then you are forgetting how long it took for LCD screens to take over the market (even though they are vastly superior). New technology like this takes at least 4 years to become decently cheap and then another 4 years before it wipes all other competitors off the map. You can't rush innovation.
So I'll probably be picking up a 46" OLED TV for $1800 in the year 2015 or so.
@MyNameIsTooAwesome: I don't think that was one of the advantages. The advantages are extremely fast activation time, space saving (thin), and can be built to be curved (think about a surround 360 theater in the not-so-distant future). They've also made bendable OLED screens (featured on Giz, actually) Another problem is the lifespan... OLED can die fast.
@dagamer34: Cost was not the initial limiting factor in the adoption of LCD screens. The cost was already low due to the widespread use in laptops and other portable devices. Limitations of LCD for use in TVs and desktop monitors included abysmal refresh (or more properly defined as response time), poor dynamic contrast and backlighting issues that effect black levels.
@derilium: Why in hell would I want a 360 degree theatre???!!! So I could always be missing something? Your facts are correct, but no, just no on that fantasy
@Coulterboy: So, implementations such as planetariums, flight and driving simulators, and battlefield simulators that test situational awareness... all that has to go? You do know these things already exist, yes? They just currently use rear-projection more often than not. As a result they suffer from spherical distortion that is difficult to overcome when projecting onto a non-planar surface.
While perhaps not practical for home theater, 360 degree screens have many practical uses, as well as entertainment uses. Virtual reality "rides" being one of them, with a moving cab/platform and a 360 screen.
I would be surprised if Apple becomes the first company to produce an OLED laptop, for the same reasons that Apple is not the first company to produce OLED mp3 players. Apple doesn't want an expensive technology eating into their margins. Plus, people already view Apple as a premium brand, even when it comes to products in which their technology is similar to that of competitors.
It's not a big deal that LG might supply screens to Apple in the future. LG already supplies screens to more computer companies than I can count. Any one of these companies could produce the first OLED laptop.
Doesn't OLED have PATHETIC light response? Apple will not put an (immature) technology into laptops that will effectively bar them from being used outside the four walls of a building.
@Barry99705:
I still don't get the issue with glossy screens. The range of angles where they're not usable is much narrower than a matte display, in my experiences. Oh sure, the glare is potentially sharper on a glossy display, but on a matte display, the screen just ends up saturated with fuzzy light even if the light's shining obliquely, given enough light.
@TheSonOfKrypton: I'm trying to figure out what you mean by light response?
Are you referring to response time, viewing angle, or brightness?
-Response time should be quicker on an OLED because LCD screens have to physically move the colored crystals into alignment.
-Viewing angle should be improved because OLEDs are a direct light source, once again, it's the crystal alignment that kills the viewing angle on LCD screens and causes color distortion.
-Brightness should be improved as well, you get brighter whites and truer blacks because OLEDs are a direct light source.
The only thing I have heard bad about OLEDs are their lifespan, but that was years ago, I'd imagine they were able to fix that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an immature technology at this point. They're still improving LCDs and they've been popular for a little over a decade, now.
@Ninety-9: Ahhhhh, you seek to understand. I respect that mindset.
I remember reading a users comments back in the day when the iPhone's 3GS specs were still being deduced and some sites were reporting it would sport an OLED screen. He made a rather convincing argument that the problem with OLED screens is that, in their present implementation, they wash out in direct sunlight, and, basically, don't give the same vibrant image that current LCD based iPhones give in direct sunlight at 100% brightness. I assumed he was right. Was he not?
Yeah, but you can't take it apart into 4 pieces. Bacteria will get in there. And I don't think I'll ever love this guys nuts. And this promises me "an exciting life". Does the TV?
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
Additionally, the organic compounds that produce color in OLED screens have different lifetimes, with the blue-producing organics having shorter lives by a factor of 10. While this may be acceptable for smallter devices that have quicker turnovers, such as cellphones and PMPs, people expect TVs to have longer lives without dramatic shifts in color saturation and purity.
08/30/09
Then you are forgetting how long it took for LCD screens to take over the market (even though they are vastly superior). New technology like this takes at least 4 years to become decently cheap and then another 4 years before it wipes all other competitors off the map. You can't rush innovation.
So I'll probably be picking up a 46" OLED TV for $1800 in the year 2015 or so.
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/31/09
While perhaps not practical for home theater, 360 degree screens have many practical uses, as well as entertainment uses. Virtual reality "rides" being one of them, with a moving cab/platform and a 360 screen.
08/06/09
It's not a big deal that LG might supply screens to Apple in the future. LG already supplies screens to more computer companies than I can count. Any one of these companies could produce the first OLED laptop.
08/06/09
08/06/09
08/06/09
08/06/09
08/06/09
I still don't get the issue with glossy screens. The range of angles where they're not usable is much narrower than a matte display, in my experiences. Oh sure, the glare is potentially sharper on a glossy display, but on a matte display, the screen just ends up saturated with fuzzy light even if the light's shining obliquely, given enough light.
08/06/09
08/06/09
Are you referring to response time, viewing angle, or brightness?
-Response time should be quicker on an OLED because LCD screens have to physically move the colored crystals into alignment.
-Viewing angle should be improved because OLEDs are a direct light source, once again, it's the crystal alignment that kills the viewing angle on LCD screens and causes color distortion.
-Brightness should be improved as well, you get brighter whites and truer blacks because OLEDs are a direct light source.
The only thing I have heard bad about OLEDs are their lifespan, but that was years ago, I'd imagine they were able to fix that. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an immature technology at this point. They're still improving LCDs and they've been popular for a little over a decade, now.
08/06/09
I remember reading a users comments back in the day when the iPhone's 3GS specs were still being deduced and some sites were reporting it would sport an OLED screen. He made a rather convincing argument that the problem with OLED screens is that, in their present implementation, they wash out in direct sunlight, and, basically, don't give the same vibrant image that current LCD based iPhones give in direct sunlight at 100% brightness. I assumed he was right. Was he not?
08/06/09
03/10/09
03/10/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
This, is a knife.
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
[www.mintred.com]
01/14/09
What's up with your links ?
They're not funny, so just stop
01/15/09
01/14/09
I think not:
glast.com/expensive308.html">[thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelong......thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelong...
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
I'm guessing Ikeaish.