AMOLED reaches price parity with LCD and now costs less than LCD to produce

[7]

AMOLED reaches price parity with LCD and now costs less than LCD to produce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.androidauthority.com/amoled-displays-now-cheaper-than-lcd-682080/

AMOLED reaches price parity with LCD and now costs less than LCD to produce

Most of the world's tablets and smartphones use LCD display
costing in the range $15 to $30.

They are mostly LCDs at present because LCDs were the cheapest
ways to make colour displays.

Thats now all changed.

OLED displays have been slow to evolve, but its taken off
in a masive way recently and is ready to displace
all LCDs due to cost.

The common basic OLED display is two layers of paint
that glow when electricity is applied across the two layers.
A simple transistor is placed next to each pixel to mak it into
an AMOLED (Active Matrix Organic Light Emitting Diode) so that it
is easier to switch each pixel on and off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED

The colour device doesn't need a complex light box and backlight
system which wastes a lot of electricity regardless of
how many pixels are lit.

AMOLEDs consume power depending on how many pixels are lit.

That makes them much more power efficient.

They are also faster at turning on and off
and so video doesn't fog as the action speeds up.

They can be printed on to flexible tape which means they
can be wrapped around curved objects.

So if you creating a lot of Linux gadgets, be sure to
ask for AMOLEDs first. These devices are daylight visible,
have much darker black colour, and lighting up just a few
pixels to indicate a status for example, wastes far less
power than an LCD display.

Within a year or two, LCDs are going to be hard to
purchase. Standing still and doing nothing is not an option.

[Saint George]

On 28/03/2016 09:21 pm, 7 wrote:
> AMOLED reaches price parity with LCD and now costs less than LCD to produce
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

But with X11 handling the graphics, it still performs like shit!

LCD or AMOLED!

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Saint George wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

Propaganda.

--
Gone With The Wind LITE(tm)
-- by Margaret Mitchell

A woman only likes men she can't have and the South gets trashed.

Gift of the Magi LITE(tm)
-- by O. Henry

A husband and wife forget to register their gift preferences.

The Old Man and the Sea LITE(tm)
-- by Ernest Hemingway

An old man goes fishing, but doesn't have much luck.

[chrisv]

7 wrote:

>AMOLED reaches price parity with LCD and now costs less than LCD to produce
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>http://www.androidauthority.com/amoled-displays-now-cheaper-than-lcd-682080/
>
>AMOLED reaches price parity with LCD and now costs less than LCD to produce

In the small sizes, anyway. Still cool. I would like to see large
OLED televisions become more affordable. This LCD-backlit LED stuff
we've got today is far from ideal.

--
"Google *already* has replaced open source Android with a
closed-source proprietary core." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying
shamelessly

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>This LCD-backlit LED stuff we've got today is far from ideal.

Shit. I got that backwards, obviously. LED-backlit LCD's, is what
we've got.

--
'Most people are against gay marriage and think a gay "lifestyle" is
disgusting. Which it is, of course. And most people are against
Linux and think a Linux "lifestyle" is disgusting. Which it also is,
of course.' - "DFS"

[Me Sham]

OLEDs still have serious burn-in issues though.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> --
> 'Most people are against gay marriage and think a gay "lifestyle" is
> disgusting. Which it is, of course. And most people are against
> Linux and think a Linux "lifestyle" is disgusting. Which it also is,
> of course.' - "DFS"

LOL What a miserable little putz!

--
Q: Why don't Scotsmen ever have coffee the way they like it?
A: Well, they like it with two lumps of sugar. If they drink
it at home, they only take one, and if they drink it while
visiting, they always take three.

[7]

Me Sham wrote:

> OLEDs still have serious burn-in issues though.

You mean some OLEDs? And some colours?
And that its now up into 10,000 hours.

But then again, its in the data sheet how to
use it properly with lifetimes for each ink.

By the time its more than 18 months
most likely you will be looking for replacement
gadget with half the price and double the utility.
That is the pace of Linux in technology.
That time scale is more than covered for
today's life time ratings and new chemicals
with better performance being discovered
every day.

[chrisv]

7 wrote:

>By the time its more than 18 months
>most likely you will be looking for replacement
>gadget with half the price and double the utility.

Not TV's. I still look to get ten years out of one. They are not
improving that fast.

4k? No thanks. Maybe if I sat 5 feet away from a 65" TV, but I
don't. 1080P is plenty good, for video, IMO.

--
"[Branching Android] would be darn near impossible. Google makes it as
hard as they can." - some thing, lying shamelessly (but no one can
quote it

[7]

chrisv wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>
>>By the time its more than 18 months
>>most likely you will be looking for replacement
>>gadget with half the price and double the utility.
>
> Not TV's. I still look to get ten years out of one. They are not
> improving that fast.

I was in costco and seen a huge range of LCD and OLED TV.
I can tell you I was salivating in front of the OLEDs.
They were about 5K when I saw them first.
Now about 2K.
The quality is unmistakable.
But price is off putting. LCDs of same size is about 0.5K.

They will come down, and then I buy.
(If it breaks, I buy again. Like kickstarter purchases, I have
no problem funding bleeding edge.)

> 4k? No thanks. Maybe if I sat 5 feet away from a 65" TV, but I
> don't. 1080P is plenty good, for video, IMO.

Pay visit to Costco and salivate :(

[chrisv]

7 wrote:

>chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Not TV's. I still look to get ten years out of one. They are not
>> improving that fast.
>
>I was in costco and seen a huge range of LCD and OLED TV.
>I can tell you I was salivating in front of the OLEDs.
>They were about 5K when I saw them first.
>Now about 2K.
>The quality is unmistakable.
>But price is off putting. LCDs of same size is about 0.5K.
>
>They will come down, and then I buy.
>(If it breaks, I buy again. Like kickstarter purchases, I have
> no problem funding bleeding edge.)
>
>> 4k? No thanks. Maybe if I sat 5 feet away from a 65" TV, but I
>> don't. 1080P is plenty good, for video, IMO.
>
>Pay visit to Costco and salivate :(

I too salivate over the OLED TV's. IMO, they are the first
significant advance over ordinary (non-3D) 1080P TV's.

--
"He disabled 17 MS compiler warnings out of ~3000. Not that I would
do it, but it's not the end of the world." - some dumb fsck

[chrisv]

chrisv wrote:

>7 wrote:

>
>>chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> 4k? No thanks. Maybe if I sat 5 feet away from a 65" TV, but I
>>> don't. 1080P is plenty good, for video, IMO.
>>
>>Pay visit to Costco and salivate :(
>
>I too salivate over the OLED TV's. IMO, they are the first
>significant advance over ordinary (non-3D) 1080P TV's.

I'll also admit that 4k is very impressive, when you're standing 4
feet from a TV that's running a super-high-quality demo.

But, in the real world, most people don't need the extra pixels - they
need more size.

I suppose the "wife acceptance factor" is an issue in the market. 4k
allows Joe Sixpack to buy an "awesome" TV without getting one that's
so large that it dominates the room. Which it really should do. 8)

--
"You did it this morning, liar:" - Dumfsck, lying shamelessly

[-hh]

7 wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
> > 7 wrote:
> >
> >>By the time its more than 18 months
> >>most likely you will be looking for replacement
> >>gadget with half the price and double the utility.
> >
> > Not TV's. I still look to get ten years out of one. They are
> > not improving that fast.

The improvements are in areas like cost, which is not a
differentiation on elements the image perception that would
motivate an existing customer to replace an existing functioning set.
To a large degree, TV consumers buy when the old one dies.

And given how OLEDs still doesn't have the reliability of the older
LCD style (10,000 hrs is only 5 years at typically low use rates; do
the math), their lifecycle costs for a customer may not necessarily
actually be a net gain.

> I was in costco and seen a huge range of LCD and OLED TV.
> I can tell you I was salivating in front of the OLEDs.
> They were about 5K when I saw them first.
> Now about 2K.
> The quality is unmistakable.
> But price is off putting. LCDs of same size is about 0.5K.
> They will come down, and then I buy.
> (If it breaks, I buy again. Like kickstarter purchases, I have
> no problem funding bleeding edge.)

Nice brag, but you still don't have one...that's YA failure on your
part to put your own money where your mouth is ("shocking!").

> > 4k? No thanks. Maybe if I sat 5 feet away from a 65" TV, but
> > I don't. 1080P is plenty good, for video, IMO.
>
> Pay visit to Costco and salivate :(

Translation: even though they're more 'flashy', yon existing TV
set is still working fine, so you don't have an excuse to replace it
despite your brags about bleeding edge, et al. And your story will
still be exactly the same 18 months from now. Perhaps the excuse
then will be that you don't have room in your doublewide, since it
your brag of making $50K actually means you're statistically below
average...hence, a Costco drooler.

Hmm...does Costco even exist as a company in UK, or did you just
accidentally blow your sockpuppet personna cover story?


-hh