Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Samsung showing 21" OLED display

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 5, 2005 10:23:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Take a look:

<http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/infoimaging/200...;

<http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=318&cid=4&...;

The references quote resolution in individual OLEDs instead of RGB
triads. This, of course, overstates the real resolution by a factor of
three.

Amorphous silicon is very likely going to be the first out for this
technology as it takes advantage of the investment in LCD fab lines.
Advances in materials will eventually allow OLED displays to be produced
by printing presses.

Matthew
January 6, 2005 9:34:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <10tnn1h7nmd61ad@corp.supernews.com>,
"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:

> Take a look:
>
> <http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/infoimaging/200...
> _2005_01_04_AEF_0402-3533-PRD.KOR.CMP.TLE..html>
>
> <http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=318&cid=4&...;
>
> The references quote resolution in individual OLEDs instead of RGB
> triads. This, of course, overstates the real resolution by a factor of
> three.
>
> Amorphous silicon is very likely going to be the first out for this
> technology as it takes advantage of the investment in LCD fab lines.
> Advances in materials will eventually allow OLED displays to be produced
> by printing presses.
>
> Matthew

You've been proclaiming that for years. ;) 

Not saying it won't happen.

But how are current OLEDs used on phones and smaller devices made?

On a related note, Toshiba promises SED by 2006. The Toshiba guy said
something like "they'll be pricey but worth it."

I don't recall if SED was suppose to have a cost advantage compared to
plasmas and LCDs. But even if they do have a cost advantage, Toshiba
will probably aim for "premium pricing."

That's what I wonder about OLEDs and other future display technologies.
There's such a gold rush mentality right now for big, expensive flat
panel displays that cost advantages might be irrelevant to pricing if
the manufacturer believes they have a category-killer.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 7, 2005 3:10:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

poldy wrote:

> In article <10tnn1h7nmd61ad@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote:
>
>
>>Take a look:
>>
>><http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/infoimaging/200...
>>_2005_01_04_AEF_0402-3533-PRD.KOR.CMP.TLE..html>
>>
>><http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=318&cid=4&...;
>>
>>The references quote resolution in individual OLEDs instead of RGB
>>triads. This, of course, overstates the real resolution by a factor of
>>three.
>>
>>Amorphous silicon is very likely going to be the first out for this
>>technology as it takes advantage of the investment in LCD fab lines.
>>Advances in materials will eventually allow OLED displays to be produced
>>by printing presses.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
> You've been proclaiming that for years. ;) 
>
> Not saying it won't happen.
>
> But how are current OLEDs used on phones and smaller devices made?

They are also on glass substrates. AIUI, flexible displays currently
have a limited lifetime and are not yet suitable for consumer devices.

> On a related note, Toshiba promises SED by 2006. The Toshiba guy said
> something like "they'll be pricey but worth it."
>
> I don't recall if SED was suppose to have a cost advantage compared to
> plasmas and LCDs. But even if they do have a cost advantage, Toshiba
> will probably aim for "premium pricing."

I would expect them to charge whatever the market can bear. If their
manufacturing method is similar to those I've read about, they will be
able to drop their cost of production pretty quickly with volume.

> That's what I wonder about OLEDs and other future display technologies.
> There's such a gold rush mentality right now for big, expensive flat
> panel displays that cost advantages might be irrelevant to pricing if
> the manufacturer believes they have a category-killer.

Which is why we need to have real competition. Not just competition by
companies but competition with technologies, too. SED, FED and OLED all
have real advantages over LCD and Plaasma. The next five years will be
very interesting.

Matthew
Related resources
January 7, 2005 3:51:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I can report that when GE would introduce an improved technology (electronic
tuners for TV's for example) they had to cost less to produce and at the
same time allow them to charge more for the improved product. A two prog
test. This is one reason why their stock has done so well over the years.

Richard.
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
January 7, 2005 8:52:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Richard wrote:
> I can report that when GE would introduce an improved technology (electronic
> tuners for TV's for example) they had to cost less to produce and at the
> same time allow them to charge more for the improved product. A two prog
> test. This is one reason why their stock has done so well over the years.

Perhaps. But keep in mind that GE televisions are not made nor marketed
by GE. Thomson Electronics licenses the brand from General Electric and
is responsible for all aspects of the product worldwide. GE has nothing
to do with it.

GE makes lots of other stuff, though. And their stock has pretty much
followed the rest of the market over the past five years. A peak of
about $60 in late 2000, down to almost $20 in early 2003, and now back
up to the mid $30s.
!