OLED Displays in iPods?

[MacRumors]

ThinkSecret reports (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/oled.html) that according to their sources, Apple is considering Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology and is planning on using it as early as next year in upcoming iPods -- with possible expansion into displays and laptops later on.

OLED technology (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1091148,00.asp) has received a lot of attention this past year -- with many speculating their uses in future Apple hardware. This is the first evidence, however, that Apple may use this technology in the future.

[joed]

Very excited when I read that on Think Secret. Interesting rumor!

Hope it's true. Wonder if Apple's also been looking at the e-ink alternatives?

Bring it on I say :)


James.

[Wardofsky]

Organic LEDs?

That's an interesting thought, I think I'm more interested in that than their relationship to Apple.

[Billicus]

That sounds cool! I wonder whether that would increase the battery life of their iPods and laptop computers.

[cgc]

I think the most interesting part is that OLEDs are color.

[coumerelli]

I think that there's just too much going on for the 23rd for us to be worried about NEXT year. But, as far as dreaming goes, that would be sweet! I'd like to see a screen that looks something to the effect of the game boy stuff - you know, color and hi res (though I know it would be a battery drainer.

[stompy]

Originally posted by Wardofsky
Organic LEDs?

That's an interesting thought, I think I'm more interested in that than their relationship to Apple.

I believe Kodak uses their home grown OLED in some of their cameras. (Too lazy to look up which ones.)

[Mr. Anderson]

OLEDs will eventually replace LCDs - they're cheaper to make, better and use less power. Also, since they don't have a glass layer like LCDs, you can roll them up....;)

I think this a great move for Apple and it will allow them to have color screens on the iPod - which means that you might have more functionality on the iPod.

Imagine a 3" screen to view images and movies on?

D

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Imagine a 3" screen to view images and movies on?

D

I already have the 3" screen to view images and movies on, on my camcorder. That doesn't mean I want to watch the stuff I recorded with the camcorder _on_ the camcorder...

<edit> realized I didn't stay on topic - This would be great news for the ipod, and even better news for laptops. battery life being extended on both products would be nothing but a good thing IMO. <end edit>

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Mudbug
I already have the 3" screen to view images and movies on, on my camcorder. That doesn't mean I want to watch the stuff I recorded with the camcorder _on_ the camcorder...

<edit> realized I didn't stay on topic - This would be great news for the ipod, and even better news for laptops. battery life being extended on both products would be nothing but a good thing IMO. <end edit>

Ah, but those are your own movies ;)

How many could you hold on an iPod?

And what if it had a video out? TV is just 640x480 res - 10 movies in your pocket?

D

[Laslo Panaflex]

I don't know if any of you guys have seen an OLED display in person, but I have and they are amazing. They compare niclely to HD IMHO. The colors and the contrast were awsome and I stood just about 180 degrees to the side and I could still see it. OLED is the future of small displays. I haven't seen or heard of a 23" cimema OLED display, so I don't know how good they would be in this environment. Having a OLED screen for an iPod would be a good move.

P.S. The size of the OLED screen I saw was about 6" diagonal, give or take. I don't remember the manufactuer's name (didn't see it anywhere on the product).

[Ja Di ksw]

This would be really amazing. I'm really looking forward to seeing what different companies (especially Apple) will do with more organic materials. This screen could save battery power on the iPod and laptops (if I'm reading it right). Anyone have any estimates on how much more time it would add to the battery of an iPod? To get slightly off topic, what I'm more interested in when it comes to this subject is the DNA processor. I've read a little here and there about it in different science magazines, though nothing within the past few months. THAT will be a sight to behold, your computer using A, T, G, C (U if they use RNA, as well). *shiver*

By the way, thanks for the OLED Tutorial link arn. Little things like that, along with the general demeanor of this site, are why its my favorite rumor site.

[altivec 2003]

...faster response time for video
...Hmmmm......

[Tim Flynn]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
OLEDs will eventually replace LCDs - they're cheaper to make, better and use less power. Also, since they don't have a glass layer like LCDs, you can roll them up....;)
D

They are not cheaper (yet). OLEDs use more power than LCD. OLEDs are transmissive, hence need power.
But .... the view is way more cool than a LCD.

[Mudbug]

Originally posted by Laslo Panaflex
I don't know if any of you guys have seen an OLED display in person, but I have and they are amazing. They compare niclely to HD IMHO. The colors and the contrast were awsome and I stood just about 180 degrees to the side and I could still see it. OLED is the future of small displays. I haven't seen or heard of a 23" cimema OLED display, so I don't know how good they would be in this environment. Having a OLED screen for an iPod would be a good move.

P.S. The size of the OLED screen I saw was about 6" diagonal, give or take. I don't remember the manufactuer's name (didn't see it anywhere on the product).

But what was the product you saw it on? That's a pretty big screen for a consumer product...

[dxp4acu]

My cell-phone has OLEDs. It is the first I think that does. It's a Motorola Timeport something or other. I still always get comments about how cool and bright they look- even after 2 years of owning the phone!!

They are pretty amazing.

[Black Badger]

Things are falling into place....

Apple will probably be the first manufacturer to sell large (>15") OLED displays.
Why? Apple currently use a company called Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) in Taiwan for their 20 inch display and I think the iMac displays, CMO have an joint venture company called IDTech in Japan who have this March shown a working 20" OLED prototype (see here) (http://www.idtech.co.jp/en/news/press/20030312.html). The other partner in IDTech is none other than IBM (see here) (http://www.idtech.co.jp/en/about/index.html), who are in with Apple, so this makes a nice triangle there where all parties are quite closely connected to each other.

This is all speculation but it does all fit quite nicely, so maybe this time next year not only will Mac users have a next generation machine, they might just have a next generation display to go with it

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by dxp4acu
My cell-phone has OLEDs. It is the first I think that does. It's a Motorola Timeport something or other. I still always get comments about how cool and bright they look- even after 2 years of owning the phone!!

They are pretty amazing.

This is a little off topic but..... I don't have one, but i have heard that the back light on the gameboy advance was terrible. This might be a good substitute. If they really are that cheap, maybe i can finally afford an apple cinema displeay :eek::cool:

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
OLEDs will eventually replace LCDs - they're cheaper to make, better and use less power. Also, since they don't have a glass layer like LCDs, you can roll them up....;)

I think this a great move for Apple and it will allow them to have color screens on the iPod - which means that you might have more functionality on the iPod.

Imagine a 3" screen to view images and movies on?

D

You forgot plasma screens, OLED is what we will be watching TV on in the next few years.

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
They are not cheaper (yet). OLEDs use more power than LCD. OLEDs are transmissive, hence need power.
But .... the view is way more cool than a LCD.

from the overview:

OLED displays are touted as the wave of the future because of their potential as thinner, lighter, brighter, and more durable screens. Unlike LCDs, which block or pass light through their layers, OLED displays use organic phosphors to generate their own light in a process called electroluminescence. Consequently, no power-draining backlighting is necessary.

They are brighter, thinner, and lighter than LCDs, and do not require a backlight. OLED's have a wider viewing angle, faster response time for video, and greater power efficiency than LCDs.

Now, maybe they're more efficient, that would seem to me that they'd take less power than an LCD.

In the case of an iPod, though, with a mono LCD, it might take less than a color OLED since it requires 3 transistors for each pixel and not one.

But regardless - for a color display, an OLED will draw less than a comperable LCD.

D

[Grimace]

I've seen the mockups for large screens. Forget everything you've ever thought about LCDs, CRTs in the past.... Imagine watching your 36" tv screen - and then rolling it up and taking it to grandma's with the kids for the weekend!

[technocoy]

the gameboy advance SP doesn't use a backlight... it's in front of the screen with an optical reflecting sheet across the lens that distibutes the light across the screen evenly, and no it's not that great.

technocoy;)

[Mudbug]

Could this be the thinking behind the "stereoscopic" displays we heard about a little while back? Maybe having a few layers of the OLED's stacked on each other with a common backlight would give the visual realism of 3D depth - just a thought. Lower power consumption per panel than LCD would mean more umph in multiple without having a new power brick to sit on the floor.

[shecky]

i had a Motorola Timeport phone also, with the OLED display. i got rid of it because you can not see it in direct sunlight. i can only hope this issue is resolved before Apple uses the technology.

[altivec 2003]

Originally posted by technocoy
the gameboy advance SP doesn't use a backlight... it's in front of the screen with an optical reflecting sheet across the lens that distibutes the light across the screen evenly, and no it's not that great.

technocoy;)
Oh, i have heard of the SP, but I don't follow consoles too closely. I guess the OLEDS would still work better in that case from what you say. Also if they are more power efficient it could mean better battery life. Oh well. I would rather see a cheaper cinema display or an ipod with longer battery life than a gameboy cause my parents have a policy of "NO GAMING CONSOLES". Thats why i have a playstation emulator. Well, anyway... that was way off topic. Sorry.

I guess i cant type :rolleyes:

[Sayer]

In typical Apple fashion, everyone else will be using OLEDs in their products months before Apple.

DELL and Gateway will introduce computers/displays/devices with OLED screens right before Apple making Apple's use seem reactionary and not revolutionary as usual.

And Apple's prices will be higher than anyone elses further driving people AWAY from Apple products.

Learn Steve, sometimes it pays to be FIRST and CHEAPER than the competition. Imagine the shock and awe of having an ultra thin flat panel display with an Apple logo being the ONLY OLED display you can buy for a few months.

Ditch ADC and make it with DVI and you could actually sell them to non-Mac users! Imagine that! It could even be compatible with third party wall-mounting hardware so it could be MORE USEFUL and have MORE VALUE and possibly sell MORE UNITS!

ATTENTION:

All you whiners signing petitions to get Apple to listen to you: BUY a share of Apple stock, get together and form a proxy vote and force Steve to recognize the Mac market for real! Hold the company accountable the only way it can be, by becoming a stockholder. Stand up in the stockholder meeting and list off all the stupid business decisions Apple makes every year and see if they can ignore THAT for very long.

[Laslo Panaflex]

Originally posted by Mudbug
But what was the product you saw it on? That's a pretty big screen for a consumer product...

Like I said, I don't know what the manufactuers name was, it was just a small stand alone screen showing a video demo, from an uknown source, probably DVD. I don't think that it was a cinsumer product, I don't know, I didn't see a price tag. I only looked at it for a minute becuase I was at store with my brother, he was looking for a new TV, and we were leaving. Nevertheless, I was impressed, anyone who looks at an OLED screen will be able to see a big difference.

[nickgold]

Originally posted by Sayer
In typical Apple fashion, everyone else will be using OLEDs in their products months before Apple.

DELL and Gateway will introduce computers/displays/devices with OLED screens right before Apple making Apple's use seem reactionary and not revolutionary as usual.

Yeah -- just like USB, Firewire, 802.11b, 802.11g, Bluetooth, LCD screens (which Apple sold long before most PC manufacturers), etc. etc. etc.

Survey says.... BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

Go crawl back under your slimey rock, troll, and BEGONE!

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by Laslo Panaflex
I stood just about 180 degrees to the side and I could still see it.


Hmmmm - in my Euclidean world 180 degrees is half a circle - that would mean you could still see it from behind!?!?

Could you see it from 360 degrees as well?

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
They are not cheaper (yet). OLEDs use more power than LCD. OLEDs are transmissive, hence need power.
But .... the view is way more cool than a LCD.

Actually LCDs are transmissive, IE: there is a white backlight that shines through red/green/blue filters.
Most OLEDs are Emissive, they consist of red/green/blue transistors that emit only those colors of light. Though depending on the implementation, some use filters, and their efficiency suffers accordingly. (I guess you would call that a hybrid emissive/transmissive display)
Prototypes have been achieving the same brightness of LCDs at about 1/3 the power.
You are right about them being more expensive, for now. However, the overall process has the potential to be much cheaper at equivalent volumes.

Nobody has mentioned operating life, however. OLEDs still degrade much quicker than LCDs (particularly the blue transistors). Not much of an issue for an iPod, but it's definitely an issue for desktops/laptops.

on another note, the thinksecret article didn't say anything about them using color OLED displays, its entirely possible they will use a monochrome version.

[RAMd®d]

In point of fact, LCDs do use less current than OLEDs.

But LCD displays usually have a backlight for indoor/night viewing, and will draw far more current than OLED displays.

I don't know that the iPod battery life will benefit from OLED tech. Personally, I don't need color on my 'Pod, although it *is* very cool. And since the Gen III 'Pods have less battery life, I'd hate to see OLEDs shorten it. However the Gen I backlight doesn't work well for me. The latest updater did make it a bit more liveable.

I'm looking forward to folding displays. Open up a 12" iB or PB, and unfold a 15" screen. Very cool, and actually practical. OLED tech meets Transformers Tech. Mega Prime Video enabled!

And Sayer may not be far from wrong- Apple *is* slow to adopt some technologies, and they have always been very proud of their work. Our wallets can verify that.

nickgold is right on with USB (not even Stevie's technology!), Firewire, 802.11b, 802.11g, Bluetooth, although I didn't realize they were also first with selling LCD displays.

Still, I can't wait to see what Apple does with OLEDs. Hopefully Jonathan will be heavily involved in their execution.

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by RAMd®d
nickgold is right on with USB (not even Stevie's technology!), Firewire, 802.11b, 802.11g, Bluetooth, although I didn't realize they were also first with selling LCD displays.


Actually, Apple wasn't first with USB standard in systems, nor 1394 standard. There were lots of 802.11b parts available when Apple added it to the iBook. LCDs were in use long before "Stevie" announced the "death of the CRT" - a bit prematurely, since Apple is *still* releasing new CRT-based systems.

Apple has led in popularizing some of these technologies, and making them standard in the products. Don't confuse that with "first", though.

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by Tim Flynn
They are not cheaper (yet). OLEDs use more power than LCD. OLEDs are transmissive, hence need power.
But .... the view is way more cool than a LCD.

More power? Do you even know what you are talking about?



When used to produce displays, OLED technology produces self-luminous displays that do not require backlighting. These properties result in thin, very compact displays. The displays also have a wide viewing angle, up to 160 degrees and require very little power, only 2-10 volts.

OLED displays have other advantages over LCDs as well:
-Increased brightness
-Faster response time for full motion video
-Lighter weight
-Greater durability
-Broader operating temperature ranges

[Sol]

I do not think it is important for Apple to be first with OLED displays or any other technology. The fact that Apple adopts a technology is enough to make it mainstream, like USB, FireWire, Airport, SuperDrivers, LCDs, etc.

Perhaps PDAs will use these OLED screens before the iPod. Palm can very easily introduce an OLED display for their Tungsten line since its customers would pay the premium for it.

By the way, I have a GameBoy Advance SP. The screen has the option to switch the light off and doing so increases the battery life. With the light on there appears to be a blue tint over the image. No complaints on my part; I highly recommend it.

[Vroem]

If I'm not mistaken, this is another result of a discovery from the 90s that enabled polimers to conduct current. Very interesting is the Lithium-Polimer (LiPol) battery in the iPod, because LiPol was the first public result of this discovery. (But I'm not an electrician and neither a chemist or fysician so...)

[Hattig]

Originally posted by coumerelli
I think that there's just too much going on for the 23rd for us to be worried about NEXT year. But, as far as dreaming goes, that would be sweet! I'd like to see a screen that looks something to the effect of the game boy stuff - you know, color and hi res (though I know it would be a battery drainer.

OLED displays use a lot less power than TFT displays - up to 1/10th of the power draw in fact. Also, they are much brighter - up to 1000 candela/m², whereas TFTs get around 500 in the highest end models, and more typically 350. I don't know how much power the passive monochrome display the iPod uses though.

The one drawback is that after 10,000 or so hours of use, OLED displays start to fail. That is, after 416 days of continuous use. Some OLEDs last a lot longer though - up to 40,000 hours.

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Actually, Apple wasn't first with USB standard in systems

But they were significently the first to drop legacy ports in favour of it, and include OS wide support for it. Which meant Apple's adoption stirred the USB takeup when many PCs at the time had USB ports but were gathering dust.


, nor 1394 standard.


I didn't know this, who was ahead of Apple?


There were lots of 802.11b parts available when Apple added it to the iBook.


But very, very few vendors who include 802.11 antennae across their entire desktop and laptop range.


Apple has led in popularizing some of these technologies, and making them standard in the products. Don't confuse that with "first", though.

Well, very few large companies are innovation leaders (except IBM, who rarely get enough credit as innovators, IMO), but Apple are invariably one of the first, if not the first, large company to commit wholeheartedly to emerging technologies. (And they generally make a better job of it too)

Mike.

[andyduncan]

Originally posted by Hattig
The one drawback is that after 10,000 or so hours of use, OLED displays start to fail. That is, after 416 days of continuous use. Some OLEDs last a lot longer though - up to 40,000 hours.

Actually it's difficult to compare life-hours. In some cases, like CRTs and OLEDs, they are usually referring to half-lifes. OLEDs and CRTs start to "fail" the moment you turn them on, and their degradation can be plotted as a curve. Their life expectancy is usually listed as the point at which they are only outputting 1/2 the light they started with.

LCD life usually refers to the backlight, which has a relatively (though not entirely) steady life until it dies completely. At which point it may be able to be replaced. The filters themselves degrade, but incredibly slowly. Usually only in projectors with powerful lights focused on small LCDs do you see heavy degradation, mainly due to heat which isn't really a problem in other implementations. DLPs are even more durable, but that's another topic.

[MacBandit]

I was watching a show the other day about OLEDs in it they referenced the Kodak digital cameras many many times. In one of there references it was stated that the OLED in the new Kodak cameras were good for 3 years of heavy use. I don't know about you but I think that sucks.

Also I know someone with one of these new Kodak digital cameras and the display while larger then the one in my Canon S230 (it should be the camera is 2-3 times the size) is much much grainier. It appears to me that it probably has about the same number of pixels as the TFT in my S230 but it's half again the size. I hope that they have better pixel density on the up coming monitors.

[Tim Flynn]

OLEDs are emissive like and Light emitting Diode (LED).
LCD are either; reflective, transflective or transmissive.
Reflective means no backlight. Looks good in sunlight, can't see anything in the dark.
Transflective is a combination of reflective and transmissive, look good in sunlight (or ok) and look ok in the dark using a backlight. This I believe in an iPod.
Transmissive mean it uses a backlight. Bright light behind the LCD panel and block out what you don't want to generate image. This what LCD TFT are.
Most computer monitors are (now) of the TFT variety.
The actual LCd panel itself uses very little power. Some use no power (ZBD displays). The majority of power used in by the backlight.
So a lot of small portable equipment, Palms, Newtons for example use transflective LCD displays. The last a long time on batteries, until you turn on the backlight :)

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by whooley
Which meant Apple's adoption stirred the USB takeup when many PCs at the time had USB ports but were gathering dust.

Apple helped popularize it, but remember that Windows 98 came out at about the same time with USB support. It didn't hurt the USB uptake that millions of PCs suddenly had support as well.


, nor 1394 standard.
I didn't know this, who was ahead of Apple?

Several Sony VAIO models had iLink ports standard before the first Mac.


But very, very few vendors who include 802.11 antennae across their entire desktop and laptop range.

Right - Apple's first with universal antennae.

]

[york2600]

Why we would want OLEDs:

Cheaper to make
Thinner
Brighter
Higher contrast ratio
Last longer
Less prone to breaking
Use much less power

[stompy]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Apple helped popularize it, but remember that Windows 98 came out at about the same time with USB support. It didn't hurt the USB uptake that millions of PCs suddenly had support as well.


.... yet continued to be sold with PS/2 keyboards and mice.

[RandomDeadHead]

Several Sony VAIO models had iLink ports standard before the first Mac.


Please excuse me if I am being stuipid but, isnt iLink just a diffrent name for firewire? And didn't Apple create or help create that standerd? So how did sony get it before Apple?

[steveh]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
LCDs were in use long before "Stevie" announced the "death of the CRT" - a bit prematurely, since Apple is *still* releasing new CRT-based systems.

Apple was shipping LCD product a *long* time before Jobs' announcement.

The Mac Portable, for example, was introduced in September, 1989.

The first clamshell portable was the GRiD 1100 Compass, in 1982. (For about 10K clams...magnesium case and ruggedized for military applications.)

The Apple//c even had an LCD display option; I played with a prototype at Apple around the beginning of '85.

[stompy]

Originally posted by RandomDeadHead
Please excuse me if I am being stuipid but, isnt iLink just a diffrent name for firewire? And didn't Apple create or help create that standerd? So how did sony get it before Apple?

iLink is essentially FireWire 400 without power, ie 4 pin connectors.

Apple invented FireWire, and for some time did not allow others to use the name. Sony came up with the iLink moniker, preferring this to the IEEE designation, 1394. (so FireWire = 1394)

[AidenShaw]

Originally posted by stompy
iLink is essentially FireWire 400 without power, ie 4 pin connectors.

Sony was actually shipping computers with S100 and S200 iLink, even before 400Mbps was out.

As far as the previous question "Why Sony before Apple?", look at the use of 1394 on camcorders. Sony was making camcorders with 1394, so they made some computers with standard ports for importing the video. Quite simple and obvious.

[stompy]

Originally posted by AidenShaw
Sony was actually shipping computers with S100 and S200 iLink, even before 400Mbps was out.



That's why I said 'essentially.' The poster seemed more concerned with what iLink is, rather than it's history. (I realize other q/a preceeded the question I attempted to answer, that were concerned with history.)

[stompy]

Haven't seen anyone comment on a different part of the ThinkSecret article, not about OLEDs, but about the next iPod.

"Set for announcement in early 2004, this iPod will boast a design and functionality radically different than current models."

ThinkSecret promises more details soon. Well, we're a long way away from an iPod update, any rumor so far in advance of actual product might not turn out to be too accurate. But TS did get the details of the current iPod right.

[stompy]

edit: oops double post

[scem0]

Originally posted by Sayer
In typical Apple fashion, everyone else will be using OLEDs in their products months before Apple.

DELL and Gateway will introduce computers/displays/devices with OLED screens right before Apple making Apple's use seem reactionary and not revolutionary as usual.

And Apple's prices will be higher than anyone elses further driving people AWAY from Apple products.

Learn Steve, sometimes it pays to be FIRST and CHEAPER than the competition. Imagine the shock and awe of having an ultra thin flat panel display with an Apple logo being the ONLY OLED display you can buy for a few months.

Ditch ADC and make it with DVI and you could actually sell them to non-Mac users! Imagine that! It could even be compatible with third party wall-mounting hardware so it could be MORE USEFUL and have MORE VALUE and possibly sell MORE UNITS!

I would not be suprised... at all... Even though many people on these forums have a biased opinion when it comes to apples and PC's, when looked at logically, PCs get the newer stuff, cheaper, before macs get them. There are a few exceptions to this, but this is what happens in most cases. That is why I won't be suprised if apple releases an OLED display later then Dell/other PC manufacturers and have it priced 'less competitively'.

Sounds like a great technology, let's hope my LCD holds up till these are released in high resolution LCD displays. :)

[joelc]

A number of people have mentioned that these would be good for video iPods - let's remember that Steve recently was quoted as saying that video iPods are most likely not on Apple's to-do list

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by joelc
A number of people have mentioned that these would be good for video iPods - let's remember that Steve recently was quoted as saying that video iPods are most likely not on Apple's to-do list

I saw all the interview bits after that and I just have to say that it's a shame. I really am in love with this product.

http://www.smartdisk.com/Products/DigitalMultimedia/FlashTrax.asp#Tech

If the iPod could do what it does I would have it in a heart beat. The main reason I love it is that I can take the CF cards right out of my digital camera and stick them in it and copy my images over and then put the card back in my camera. I wouldn't need a bunch of huge CF cards for a trip I could just take my 30GB portable storage device and my camera and carry them both in my pockets.

[cb911]

it may very well happen that PC companies will be the "first" to adopt OLED technology, but Apple will be the ones who actually do something useful and cool with it.

and as soon as early 2004 for a OLED iPod!!! :D

another reason why PC companies might be quicker to adopt a new technology is because PC people are only interested in the latest stuff (generally speaking). if Apple isn't the first out with OLED it will probably be because they are ironing out bugs with them. PC companies will be happy to release cruddy hardware and start making money off it, but as we all know, Apple usually releases products of very high quality.

[visor]

Originally posted by shecky
i had a Motorola Timeport phone also, with the OLED display. i got rid of it because you can not see it in direct sunlight. i can only hope this issue is resolved before Apple uses the technology.

Well, there's about no color display that can actually be seen in direct sunlight. I cant even see may CRT when it reflects direct sunlight.

[sparks9]

Very cool, hope Apple does it. And Thinksecret is usually reliable so I think it will come true.

[Nutzoids]

Too many toys not enought money!

[gooddog]

Try this URL,

http://www.universaldisplay.com/


I think the battery time increase will be about
three times the current capacity, at least.

OLEDS are microscopically thin (1/50,000 of an inch) layers of ink that shines WITHOUT NEED OF A BACKLIGHT, when exposed to an electric field. This uses much less energy than current backlights use.

"STACKED OLED's" have RED, GREEN and BLUE
sub-pixels on top of each other FOR EACH PIXEL site : not side-by-side (s-b-s).

These columns of stacked sub-pixels are transparent.

So each individual pixel can have any hue (e.g., pink, purple, white, etc.)

Traditional s-b-s subpixels yield washed out colors by comparison. For example, a red image would have its green and blue pixels in a dark state --- that's a loss of 2/3 of your pixels
and, therefore, 2/3 of your color saturation.

STACKED OLED displays would, instead, have shoulder-to-shoulder red pixels for an image of a cherry, and shoulder-to-shoulder pink pixels for an image of a strawberry milkshake.

Active matrix displays , of course, need individually addressable transistors at each cross-roads of the array. But they can be extremely small, and so can the ink-spots. So
resolution will be limited mainly by the processor and memory capacity.

The manufacturing process may become as simple as printing (one sample was done on a modified ink-jet printer) substrate by the roll
and then cutting to size !

Prices will be in the hundreds instead of the thousands, for large screens.

By using mirrored substrate , a transflective display will cure sun-washout.

THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN --- keeping the organics safe from oxidation in the atmosphere: Plastic coats are permeable.
Glass kills the "ruggedness" promise of an all-plastic display...

WHERE IS SCOTTY AND HIS TRANSPARENT ALUMINUM WHEN WE NEED HIM ?!!

But even glass may not need to be the terribly expensive "mother glass" used in LCD's now.


Beam me up Spock ...


---gooddog

[MacBandit]

There is little doubt that OLEDs will become the defacto standard in the years to come and should be better then the current line of displays in every way. Though there we are going to have to wait a least a couple years for the bugs to be worked out. That was the first time I heard about the stacked pixes with OLED that is really cool. Just imagine having 3 times the resolution on your display because they don't have to make room for all those damn red, green, blue pixels side by side.

[gooddog]

Imagine a transparent sheet overlay built into your windshield that , with McWorth eye-tracking sensors, will project a 3D navigation heads-up display and even an infra-red enhanced scene for missing those pedestrians in the fog .

... built-in rear-view patch instead of the
head bangger mirror now in use...

And night-vision views... make headlights less crucial --- maybe only running lights and some powerful/invisible IR floods.

With appropriate software, the scene out the front could be magnified and tailored to compensate for any number of problems -- including night blindness, tunnel vision, color blindness, etc....

Then park and enjoy a great flick --- like
your own Drive-In --- how nostalgic !

And , eventually , a toggle on-off billboard scene so that physical billboards and ads need not clutter the neighborhoods.

Or how about a dark spot only exactly where the setting sun appears in your field of view.

Oh, well !!!!

Let's wait and see.

---gooddog

[Bengt77]

Originally posted by gooddog
Imagine a transparent sheet overlay built into your windshield that , with McWorth eye-tracking sensors, will project a 3D navigation heads-up display and even an infra-red enhanced scene for missing those pedestrians in the fog .

... built-in rear-view patch instead of the
head bangger mirror now in use...

And night-vision views... make headlights less crucial --- maybe only running lights and some powerful/invisible IR floods.

With appropriate software, the scene out the front could be magnified and tailored to compensate for any number of problems -- including night blindness, tunnel vision, color blindness, etc....

Then park and enjoy a great flick --- like
your own Drive-In --- how nostalgic !

And , eventually , a toggle on-off billboard scene so that physical billboards and ads need not clutter the neighborhoods.

Or how about a dark spot only exactly where the setting sun appears in your field of view.

Oh, well !!!!

Let's wait and see.

---gooddog

That would indeed be very useful. I would love to see all that in a car's front window; very very cool! I've been reading up a lot about HU displays lately and have to say they have a future, but not with today's display technology. But this OLED thing might do the trick! Very impressive what it can do...

[iMook]

The general idea of a fully interactive car windshield is neat, though there's a few problems with implementation.

1. What if the display's OS crashes, and you're going 70 mph with The Godfather II covering your windshield?

2. replacing headlights with night vision wouldn't be a good idea, since pedestrians (read: dark country roads) don't have night vision.

3. Toggled windshield billboards would be horrible once they got mainstream. You'll have X10 on the highways. If you mean highway road signs, and not ads, well, read [1].

The overall idea is awesome, but I don't think full-windshield implementation would be good.

But, I can see non-static billboards (OLED screens as billboards). Those'll be cool. and wouldn't it be great if NYC replaced the Time Square bigscreens with OLEDs? In the words of Crush the Turtle: "Sweet."

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by iMook
The general idea of a fully interactive car windshield is neat, though there's a few problems with implementation.

1. What if the display's OS crashes, and you're going 70 mph with The Godfather II covering your windshield?

2. replacing headlights with night vision wouldn't be a good idea, since pedestrians (read: dark country roads) don't have night vision.

3. Toggled windshield billboards would be horrible once they got mainstream. You'll have X10 on the highways. If you mean highway road signs, and not ads, well, read [1].

The overall idea is awesome, but I don't think full-windshield implementation would be good.

But, I can see non-static billboards (OLED screens as billboards). Those'll be cool. and wouldn't it be great if NYC replaced the Time Square bigscreens with OLEDs? In the words of Crush the Turtle: "Sweet."

There are quite a few motion billboards in the Tacoma area and the problem is that the accident rate has gone up dramatically near them. The problem is they don't just rotate from one static image to the next. The advertisements are just like commercials on TV requiring and even insisting people pay attention.

I do think though that a few small displays in an out of the way place on the windshied would be great to give you information about your speed and the motor and the car radio etc.. Combine the radio display with voice control like on the new Lexus RX and you have a great system.

[MOFS]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I saw all the interview bits after that and I just have to say that it's a shame. I really am in love with this product.

http://www.smartdisk.com/Products/DigitalMultimedia/FlashTrax.asp#Tech

If the iPod could do what it does I would have it in a heart beat. The main reason I love it is that I can take the CF cards right out of my digital camera and stick them in it and copy my images over and then put the card back in my camera. I wouldn't need a bunch of huge CF cards for a trip I could just take my 30GB portable storage device and my camera and carry them both in my pockets.

Have you seen the battery life?

What is FlashTrax’ battery life?
It depends on what you’re doing: For MP3 playback, it’s about 3 hours. When using the LCD to view photos, it’s about 2 hours.

Whats the point of the MP3 player if its only able to play for 3 hours? You may as well get an iPod and keep your camera with you all the time to view the pictures. Yes, it looks impressive on the outside, but I think this is like those Rio MP3 players; too much, too soon. As said before, the OLEDs will allow longer battery lifes (due to the omission of the backlight) and probably thinner and lighter devices due to advances in hard drive minaturisation. The type of innovation and style attempted by FlashTrax is, at this moment of time, only visible in companies such as Sony and Apple, and one of them will do something like the Flash Trx properly someday.

[gooddog]

There would be no physical billboards , animated or otherwise, on the road side.

The density of virtual ads on the windshield would be regulated as billboards' density is now.

The size and location, on the windshield, as well as animation etc. would all be regulated more easily in a virtual world than they are now. And you could switch them all or some to a separate display on the dash so as to drive with *more* safety, not less.

The legal battles might parallel those currently being fought over ad-skipping Tivo's, spam, etc.

I am confident a good deal could be reached vís-a-vís the ad industry.


Flip ads on, and get a discount on hydrogen for your fuel cell, or other bonus.

If the windshield display crashes at 70 mph, it reverts back to clear glass...pull the plug :)

Pedestrians could use beautiful features for landmarks and they could also have handheld ( ultra-light, flexible) receivers
as well as very small wooden signs for landmarks -- like they mandate in up-scale neighborhoods .... nothing new.

Headlights would not be eliminated --
they would be replaced with dimmer "running lights" -- beautiful , colorful, and not pointed at our faces. With coming LED technology and current translucent plastics, we could make the whole vehicle glow softly over an extended area of the visual field : I think the dim-but-huge lights on old Mercedes' cars are much easier on the eyes of on-coming traffic than the latest beady-eyed super bright point lights (the bluish ones) on the road. And the total flux of light can be equal.

The billboards would have to look just like they do now -- no difference. Animated distractions would be legislated as they are now. But when you step out of the car, you get a clean landscape. These "signs" would be driver-specific ... but no porno , please !!! We would all die :)



Such things ( using wi-fi) are actually in the works now -- with audio and advertisements tailored to the I.D. of the driver -- each car gets ads on the radio tailored to their buying habits. This is a small improvement, IMO, since I often enjoy ads for things I want to buy. But I am sure there would be even better ideas coming.

Movies would work only while parked.

BTW, what if your current anti-skid system malfunctions at 80 mph and applies the brake to only your right front tire ???

... just a thought.

---gooddog

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by MOFS
Have you seen the battery life?



Whats the point of the MP3 player if its only able to play for 3 hours? You may as well get an iPod and keep your camera with you all the time to view the pictures. Yes, it looks impressive on the outside, but I think this is like those Rio MP3 players; too much, too soon. As said before, the OLEDs will allow longer battery lifes (due to the omission of the backlight) and probably thinner and lighter devices due to advances in hard drive minaturisation. The type of innovation and style attempted by FlashTrax is, at this moment of time, only visible in companies such as Sony and Apple, and one of them will do something like the Flash Trx properly someday.

For me it's not about battery life. I would probably only use it as an MP3 player while in the car and the rest of the time it would be off. I would only turn it on to download the images from my camera to it. That would be the main purpose to hold the images not to view them. 30Gigs of hard drive is a lot cheaper then 1Gig CF cards at $200 a piece. It's kind of a mobile storage unit.

If you or anyone else knows of a portable hard drive that can be used to copy pictures over without a computer let me know.

[MUrhino]

Yeah, the military uses this stuff in maps and other stuff. We should look for these to replace regular tv's in about 5 years. Imagine just hanging a tv on your wall, or taking it with you by just rolling it up. pretty exciting technology.

[begood]

Gooddog,
In regard to the permeability problem, there was a recent breakthough by Vitex (further research being funded by Samsung through Vitex) and a protoytpe developed and displayed at the recent SID for a flexible OLED display using Universal Display Corporation's PHOLED (PH implies Phosphorescent Doped) which is up to 4 times as efficient as regular flourescent OLED. The new barrier coating is highly impermeable and also rugged.

An additional breakthough was also demoed at SID by IBM/Chi Mei & and separately by AU Optronics/Universal Display Corporation for OLEDs printed on amorphous silicon backplanes.

Universal Display is working with Sony and Samsung in addition to AU Optronics and Dupont (which intends to develop and market a solution based version on Universal Display's materials).

I believe the manufacturing companies (I think Sanyo and Pioneer have been working with Kodaks materials & Phillips LG with CDT's)are all trying to enhance their brands and differentiate their products with OLED. AAPL is smart to be considering this new technology, especially for portable devices where the significantly lower weight, and power efficiencies will enhance the product. The lifetime of blue is a hurdle being tackled on many fronts. I have my fingers crossed that there will be a 10,000 hour blue by next year. Red and green are over 15,000 hours, which is important because they get the most usage in a color display. I think blue gets significantly lower use in real life so perhaps blue might last longer in actual use, than at full time burn at 200 nits.

It would be nice to see an OLED iPod. Sony's 13" prototype monitor certainly was certainly sleek.

[gooddog]

This sounds fantastic !


I had not kept up with developments.

Every time they have a demo, I have to be at work .

I guess the blue uses more energy
( Plank) and so it takes a greater beating.

If my G4 iMac could plug into the Apple
23" , I would have blown my savings on one by now; maybe good thing's-a-comin for those of us on a teacher's budget :)

One thing I do wish Apple would do is to make the displays serve as TV monitors for satellite HD TV ( the REAL 1080 progressive standard ) .

I just can't see me spending on such a big screen twice.

---gooddog

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by begood
I think blue gets significantly lower use in real life so perhaps blue might last longer in actual use, than at full time burn at 200 nits

Not for OS X users who don't change the default background... :)

Dave