OLED TV proven too costly

[Smokey]

Two years ago at Consumer Electronic Show, OLED (organic light-emitting diode) technology was talk of town as how it would replace LCD and Plasma TVs due to its superiour Blacks, Contrast ratio, viewing angle and response time. But now, it seem OLED might be in trouble.

OLED has proven too expensive to develop as a mass-market product. So Sony announced it would no longer produce its $2,000-plus OLED set for the Japanese market as prognosis for churning out TVs beyond Sony’s $2,500 11-inch XEL model is daunting.

“As flat-panel TVs are getting bigger and cheaper, hurdles for OLED models have become higher, at least in the short term,” Hisakazu Torii, the vice president for Japanese TV market research at DisplaySearch, told Reuters.

Although it will be available in over seas market, Sony said it would end sales of OLED TV in Japan when inventory runs out.

http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/...er=rss&emc=rss

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I am not surprised by this one bit. As LCD and Plasma's become cheaper and cheaper at larger sizes, OLED and Mitsubishi Laser TV just didn't make economic sense. These two technologies would have to directly compete with products that were cheaper, similar in size, even if overall they performed better. Both of these technologies would have moved display devices forward in a very profound way.

So this is the chilling effect of cheap. The display technology does not naturally move forward. Pioneer got out of the business and took the superior Kuros panel with it, Sony dumps OLED, and Mitsubishi dumps Laser TV. Doesn't seem like there is much to look forward to except 3D and 4K.

[kexodusc]

Doesn't seem like there is much to look forward to except 3D and 4K.

Maybe I'm a party-pooper, but I say good. The world needs a few years to catch up to the technology that's been thrown at them the last several years. Seems as soon as you get a set home, it's feature list is out-dated. People would prefer not replacing their set every 4-5 years and a lot of people are still just getting their first BluRay player and HDMI capable set.

Maybe it'll give the techs in the labs time to come up with something even better in the meantime.

[Smokey]

So this is the chilling effect of cheap. The display technology does not naturally move forward.

This is just a wild guess, but success of LED LCD might had a big impact on Sony decision to drop OLED. Given that LED TVs almost share the same properties as OLED technology such as no back lighting, high contrast ratio and truer color- Sony thought it might not be worth trouble as OLED will only provide marginal improvement as LED LCD keep improving.

Already the contrast ratio of some LED LCD is reaching over 1 million.

Maybe I'm a party-pooper, but I say good.

You starting to sound like Pixelthis

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is just a wild guess, but success of LED LCD might had a big impact on Sony decision to drop OLED. Given that LED TVs almost share the same properties as OLED technology such as no back lighting, high contrast ratio and truer color- Sony thought it might not be worth trouble as OLED will only provide marginal improvement as LED LCD keep improving.

Already the contrast ratio of some LED LCD is reaching over 1 million.



You starting to sound like Pixelthis

Now lets cut through the marketing speak. 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio cannot be measured with any known equipment. Second, this is a dynamic contrast ratio, not a natural panel one. The best contrast measuring(or grey scale) equipment can only record a 50-70,000:1 ratio, so the million to one is bogus. Its marketing 101.

LED LCD are a slow selling sub category of LCD because the price is still so high. The thing I loved about OLED is that it looked more like a CRT or plasma than a LCD. I am sure that Sony will continue to refine the technology until they can bring it down to the proper economic scale to the legacy digital display technology. At least I hope so.

Kex, you are a party pooper, and here is some toilet paper. Clean up after yourself!

[pixelthis]

This is just a wild guess, but success of LED LCD might had a big impact on Sony decision to drop OLED. Given that LED TVs almost share the same properties as OLED technology such as no back lighting, high contrast ratio and truer color- Sony thought it might not be worth trouble as OLED will only provide marginal improvement as LED LCD keep improving.

Already the contrast ratio of some LED LCD is reaching over 1 million.



You starting to sound like Pixelthis

NOT REALLY.
I have been a champion of OLED from the get-go, and am sad to see it sink.
But if you can do the same thing cheaper...
As for LED LCD being expensive, I have seen sets for 1400 bucks, its the fact that they are so cheap that killed OLED.
And its one of the reasons I HAVE BEEN A FAN OF lcd, because with just one type
of tech, more research can be done and quality can increase, and prices can be lowered.
I STILL think there is a place for OLED in the future.
They just need to get the price down, and increase longevity.

[Smokey]

The thing I loved about OLED is that it looked more like a CRT or plasma than a LCD.

That would be in theory since currently there is no large OLED display available to be evaluated. But either way, SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display) technology probably have more in common with CRT than OLED.

I STILL think there is a place for OLED in the future.

Probably there is a place for OLED, but it might situat itself as next natural step for LED LCD picture improvment rather than something completely new.

[Woochifer]

That would be in theory since currently there is no large OLED display available to be evaluated. But either way, SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display) technology probably have more in common with CRT than OLED.

There have been plenty of demo models displayed at CES the last couple of years, including this year where both Sony and Samsung had OLED sets running 3D demos that wowed the crowds.

http://www.techradar.com/news/televi...ace-off-662181

The first practical sized OLED TVs are supposedly coming out by the end of this year or sometime next year. All that Sony has proven is that nobody wants to pay $2,500 for an 11" TV, so I don't see where you would conclude that OLED is "in trouble," especially with LG introducing their own 15" OLED TV this summer.

A sign of trouble would be if the major electronics firms withdraw from OLED development (much the same way that Canon and Toshiba pulled their resources out of SED development). That has not happened. If anything, OLED is ramping up for significant growth over the next few years (see below).

Probably there is a place for OLED, but it might situat itself as next natural step for LED LCD picture improvment rather than something completely new.

What you're not looking at is OLED beginning to gain traction with smartphones and small sized media players. That's where you see the first volume production for OLED screens. I would expect that this leads to improvements with the screen life and specific color shades fading out faster than others over time, which can only benefit development with larger screen sizes.

Those are the issues that OLED needs to fix before they can go full steam ahead, because with the picture quality factors, OLED has none of the weaknesses of other display types. For example, LED LCD (if done correctly) has helped improve LCD picture quality, but it has not done anything to improve the viewing angle and with the samples tested by multiple reviewers last year, actually made it worse. OLED has no inherent issues with the viewing angle, but they need to get a handle on the durability questions first.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That would be in theory since currently there is no large OLED display available to be evaluated. But either way, SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display) technology probably have more in common with CRT than OLED.

Not theory, actual viewing experience. I have seen a prototype 22" Sony OLED display, and it looked like a CRT television in terms of black levels and richness of color.

Probably there is a place for OLED, but it might situat itself as next natural step for LED LCD picture improvment rather than something completely new.

I didn't get a chance to really get into this discussion with my buddy from Sony, but OLED is not quite dead yet according to him. As soon as I sit down with him, I will get the whole story.

[pixelthis]

Not theory, actual viewing experience. I have seen a prototype 22" Sony OLED display, and it looked like a CRT television in terms of black levels and richness of color.





I didn't get a chance to really get into this discussion with my buddy from Sony, but OLED is not quite dead yet according to him. As soon as I sit down with him, I will get the whole story.

If CRT was so superiour, why was it done away with?
If that is your gold standard, they sell 20" all day at any dollar store.

[GMichael]

If CRT was so superiour, why was it done away with?
If that is your gold standard, they sell 20" all day at any dollar store.

That's because Average Joe & Jane want flat panels. It has nothing to do with picture quality.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's because Average Joe & Jane want flat panels. It has nothing to do with picture quality.

Now watch this accurate comment just pass right through his thick head.

[Smokey]

The first practical sized OLED TVs are supposedly coming out by the end of this year or sometime next year. All that Sony has proven is that nobody wants to pay $2,500 for an 11" TV, so I don't see where you would conclude that OLED is "in trouble," especially with LG introducing their own 15" OLED TV this summer.

I did a little research on that LG model and it seem to carry the same price as 11 inch OLED model from Sony ($2700).So we we may have same scenario as Sony did. One link was saying that price of a practical size OLED TV will not reach current LCD prices till year 2016.

[kevlarus]

That's because Average Joe & Jane want flat panels. It has nothing to do with picture quality.

I'm not so sure it's just "flat panels". The old crt was "flat', but I guess not *as* flat. Mainly, less power consumption, much lighter weight to move, and digital connectivity options which is big plus.

I'm just sad that Sony relegated the 5.1/7.1 audio out to their ES line for those who don't have DD-HD and DTS-HD decoding.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not so sure it's just "flat panels". The old crt was "flat', but I guess not *as* flat. Mainly, less power consumption, much lighter weight to move, and digital connectivity options which is big plus.
.

My next question to you would be do you really think that all of this was an issue when flat panels where introduced?

I would say based on the Plasma's release in early 2000's power would have been off the table, they used about the same with CRT's of similar size. I would also argue that weight would have been a non issue because people just don't move their panels all over the place - they are positioned in a stationary place just like CRT's were. Connectivity would not have been a big deal because both were offering the same connections at flat panels beginnings. It could not have been resolution because there were 1080i CRT's long before there were flat panel 1080p sets.

In the introduction of panels, floor space and weight were the top reason folks switched over, which pretty much makes G's points correct.

[pixelthis]

Now watch this accurate comment just pass right through his thick head.

If this "accurate" comment is correct, then a 20" from a dollar store is better than an
LCD with all the bells and whistles.
Get help, before you go stupid again.

[pixelthis]

I'm not so sure it's just "flat panels". The old crt was "flat', but I guess not *as* flat. Mainly, less power consumption, much lighter weight to move, and digital connectivity options which is big plus.

I'm just sad that Sony relegated the 5.1/7.1 audio out to their ES line for those who don't have DD-HD and DTS-HD decoding.

The new CRT is "flat", not quite so much as Talkys head, but there you go.
I am talking about plasma of course
PLASMA is just a squished CRT, all they could think of to meet the demand for
"flat screen" TV.
Thats why CRT and plasma worshipers tend to be the same person.
They like plasma and sing its praises for the same reason they praise CRT,
mainly that phosper is used in both cases to make a picture.
CRT using phosper is what they have watched their whole life, so they think a
plasma picture looks "natural", so thats why they [I]love[I] it.
Does phosper produce more accurate colors?
NO
a sharper picture perhaps?
NO, as a matter of fact, a phosper based picture will be fuzzier.
What about a brighter picture?
HECK NO.
Quite the opposite, there is a real limitation in the amount of light a phosper dot on a CRT or plasma can put out, so you have to watch one in the dark to even get close to LCD.
But that is what little plasma/CRT babies are used to, have watched their whole life,
its their security blanky.
I call it the "turntable" effect, where a subjecty just states nonsense in spite of reality
slapping him in the face(also known as the femmer effect).
You have to be carefull around these people, just like most delusional types.
Dont state reality around them that might upset their fantasy world.
Might cause a psychotic break.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If this "accurate" comment is correct, then a 20" from a dollar store is better than an
LCD with all the bells and whistles.
Get help, before you go stupid again.

Pix, thank you for further clearing up what I have always said about you regrading CRT based displays. You have just one perspective on the issue, a single gun table top CRT television. You have ZERO perspective when it comes to RPTV's televisions and monitors(like mine) and front projection based CRT display devices.

However, I fully understand that you cannot betray your trailer park mentality and perspective for anything better. You just do not have any better reference point than the fore mentioned.

[Woochifer]

I did a little research on that LG model and it seem to carry the same price as 11 inch OLED model from Sony ($2700).So we we may have same scenario as Sony did. One link was saying that price of a practical size OLED TV will not reach current LCD prices till year 2016.

If you're looking at pricing, ask yourself how long did it take LCD prices to reach their current levels? OLED prices won't go down overnight. Every new TV technology has an early adopter phase where the TVs are low volume high margin products.

OLED has some potential cost advantages over LCD on the production side, in theory, because production of OLED panels requires fewer steps and less time. But, those advantages won't get realized until OLED ramps up for volume production. You already see some volume production of OLED panels because of demand from smartphones. But, as I pointed out earlier, OLED needs to fix some lingering technical issues before it can make the jump to larger screen sizes.

[pixelthis]

Pix, thank you for further clearing up what I have always said about you regrading CRT based displays. You have just one perspective on the issue, a single gun table top CRT television. You have ZERO perspective when it comes to RPTV's televisions and monitors(like mine) and front projection based CRT display devices.

However, I fully understand that you cannot betray your trailer park mentality and perspective for anything better. You just do not have any better reference point than the fore mentioned.

IN other words if someone (anyone who is right) disagrees with your exalted
exelence, they just have to be wrong.
You must be a reincarnation of a Catholic priest, or some other holy many who just knew that his way of looking at things was the only way.
HERES an unavoildable FACT, said it a zillion times already, wont say it again,
the smaller a phosper dot, the less light it puts out, and in order to increase resolution you have to increase the number of phosper dots, making them smaller,
and the entire display dimmer.
This is why plasma displays are so dim, and
CRT of a certain resolution is so dim you have to watch it in a dark room.
The cause of your dimness remains to be seen.
And dont say this is a good "trade off" for "quality", quality that is mostly in your head.
Its NOT.
A dim display that will last five to ten years , not to mention is no longer around,
in not acceptable.
I will put you in touch with MICHEAL FREMMER, he cant seem to let go of obsolete tech
either.
Maybe you two can start a support group or something.