Comments on: Still waiting for OLED TVs

Televisions based on organic materials promise better picture quality and energy efficiency, but they'll be pricey and unavailable until sometime next year.
Photos: Future TVs

[ofuel]

OLED TVs

How long is 10,000 hours in terms of years?

Is 30,000 on a screen for a TV going to last for say- 5 years of typical usage? More?

Use 4 hours a day... as a rule of thumb.

[cschlise]

OLEDs

Pretty biased article. Plasma and LCD's days are already numbered. They are a non-ideal stop-gap technology.

OLEDs and field emission diode/display (FED) based "thin" TV's will replace plasma and LCD. The reason?

They have the exact same picture advantages of CRT without the need for the deep picture tube. They are also simpler designs.

All this non-sense talk of contrast ratio, true black, burn-in, response time, etc will go away with these new display technologies/techniques.

We shouldn't detract from either plasma or LCD's contributions though since they were the "stepping stone" technologies that will make OLED and FED "easier" to fabricate and bring to market sooner.

In a few years, LCD's and plasmas will start to get phased out of the line-up as OLED and FED ramp up. The costs will come down just like they have for every technology.

[ralfthedog]

Bad technology.

OLED just like plasma and CRT is susceptible to raster burn. I know that advances have slowed raster burn, but I find any unacceptable.

DLP may be thick, but it will last a very long time.

[barrington thompson]

Is 40" OLED TVs just Hype?

Video clips - Different OLED TVs (foldable, thinnest, smallest, largest (Samsung?s 40?), telephone etcetera).
Select the various picture frames in Sony You Tube section - to obtain OLED information.

Why read about it when you can actually see video clips?
http://www.oled-display.net/oled-television

More OLED TV information but no video clips:-
http://www.oled-display.net/technology/oled-tv

Laser TV and SED promised a lot - has not been marketed at least in the UK.

The last website (http://www.oled-display.net/technology/oled-tv) above to quote:
Higher contrast. OLED materials can support the full spectrum of visible light.

My attitude was, but HDMI 1.3 probably made the same claim. Therefore, I went to the HDMI?s official website to check. It implies that HDMI 1.3 could display the entire spectrum:
http://hdmi.org/learningcenter/videos.aspx#features
I used the following video clips:-
1) HDMI 1.3 ?Overview and
2) HDMI 1.3 Deep Colour.

Therefore, OLED may just be an exaggeration. I would prefer to have a much more reliable 40? LCD or SED 1920x1080p TV with virtually the same picture quality has OLED despite that it maybe a couple of centimetres (about one inch) difference in thickness. Why don?t all OLED TVs have 1,000,000:1 contrast, and why are the 11? OLEDs thicker than the larger OLED TVs 27" (think) ? in Sony?s case.

Before I forget, in the UK about June/July, Samsung was probably the first to market a 40? HDMI 1.3 M87 TV that in theory should have produced the best picture quality and it was useless (banding, flesh tones? claimed). Probably, the most important thing in a TV is the quality of the video scaler, so I purchased the Sony KDL-40W2000 at almost the cheapest price - must be able to trust retailer if anything goes wrong.

To quote Sharp:

Sharp said the new LCD television that is being developed would be just 29 millimetres thick in a 52-inch model

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sharp-aims-mass-produce-super/story.aspx?guid=%7BDA85DD63-DBF2-4F01-9734-94173CB63C98%7D

If Sharp could produce a much thinner LCD so should some other companies

[saiga6360]

apples to oranges

What does HDMI have anything to do with what OLED can natively display? HDMI is an interface.

[Reiley]

Lazer TV

Im still waiting for the lazer TV's.I thought they were supposed to be out by now????

[MultiMuse]

AV projector light bulbs are short lived, yet...

AV projector light bulbs are short lived, all too often far less than a 100 hours of use before they pop, and they cost hundreds of dollars to replace, yet... gee whiz, the marketplace is still aflood with countless models of these video devices ranging from a $1000 on up! They are not exactly "affordable" for home consumerism. Yet they thrive.

So that being a fact, how can these pundits claim that no new video technology is economically feasible in the TV market unless it can deliver 30K to 50K hours of longevity? Even so, that target is only a 3x to 5x increase over the stated current life-span of OLED displays, and can probably be quickly reached with improved purity in the manufacturing process or source materials.
No biggie there. It's not like they're stating they need a 10-fold or 100x increase before they can bring it to the marketplace.

And the short blurb by iSuppli analyst Patel, seems self-contradictory. We know it's only the price/performance ratio that matters to wise consumers, and both the marketeers and consumers look for that "sweet spot" in pricing and buying.
So the only "step" that is required for market success of a newly introduced product is for it to deliver an obviously sweeter "bang for the buck", for buyers to migrate to it. The claim that new tech needs to be "many steps ahead" of the current tech is just hot air bloviation.
Example: DLP RP HDTV (yes I bought one this year) found it's market success in the technology mix because it represented more bang for the buck,
not because it was "many steps ahead" of plasma or LCD TVs in technological features.

Methinks some market "analysts" and industry commentators probably have a vested interest in their particular biased opinions. Oui? Nyet?

[bxnayan]

LIFE SPAN IS LONGER THAN LCD!!!!

TOSHIBA AND PANASONIC FOUND A WAY TO EXPAND THE LIFESPAN TO ^60,000 hrs. THAT MEANS THAT THE OLED WILL LIVE LONGER THAN A TYPICAL LCD w/ lifespan of only 50,000. check the link from engadget

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/toshiba-and-panasonic-double-oled-lifespan-exceeds-lcds/

[bxnayan]

oops

I didnt read the whole article before I posted.