Apple Reportedly Still Uninterested in OLED Technology for iOS Devices and Potential Televisions

[JHankwitz]

What exactly do sales figures tell us? Ford sell more cars than Aston Martin, yet we both know which is the better car.

Ford sells the better car. If it wasn't they would have sold fewer than Aston Martin. Buyers weigh all the features and benefits when making a purchase. Price is a big one. Servicability is another.

Apple's stores and Genius Bar service often wins over price.

 

[wwchris]

Most of that is ludicrous. Leave a large TV panel on 24/7 for it to be an alarm clock? Just buy one, geez. And then you basically described a tablet as we know them today. $99 is a bit less than they will sell for in the near future, product dumping aside.

I didn't mean to use it functionally as an "alarm clock", I meant have it turn on at a time that I set and begin displaying the things above.

Ok, so instead, I would wake up in the morning and turn my TV on in my bedroom for the functionality I listed.

Also, it is not a tablet as described today, my iPad doesn't do any of that (except HULU), it doesn't even have a built in alarm clock. Also, a tablet is small format that I cannot see from across the room. Unless you are going to argue an iPad is just a big iPod touch? The form makes all the difference.

So other than not leaving the TV on all night, what else was ludicrous?

 

[aohus]

They get them from Sharp, the ones you're bigging up in this thread. You'd be best advised to do your research before making two completely false statements.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/lcd-led-lcd-tvs/1423748-philips-2011-9000-series-smart-led-tv.html

Their 21:9 cinema display is the best tv I have ever encountered, and I own a Kuro.

Which 2 statements were completely false?

Sharp's Elite series TV panels most likely does not use the same Sharp panels as they do with the mainstream panels they sell.

Additionally, the Elite brand was acquired by Sharp just recently.

by and large, Sharp panels are not reviewed as well as their counterparts, namely Samsung.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Televisions are JUST A DISPLAY

and let Google invade the living room with Apple on the sidelines?

There is no doubt that Apple will be moving to the TV business. They've been gearing up for it since Apple TV. Why do they call it a 'hobby' still? Because its not final product yet. It will be once that AppleTV is included inside a TV set.

What you fail to realize is that an Apple Television would provide NO user benefit over any other television. So it would compete on TECH SPECS and TECH PERFORMANCE alone. Other Apple products succeed because the only way to get the Mac OS X user experience is on a Mac...the only way to get the sublime iOS interface and hardware/software integration on a tablet is on an iPad...and the only way to stream your iTunes library and watch Netflix on your TV using a polished Apple interface is with an Apple TV.

BUT, televisions are completely different! It all comes down to refresh rates, contrast, black levels, etc. There is intense competition in premium sets and razor-thin margins. Apple would have NOTHING to gain by entering that market. To say that building the Apple TV into a TV set will be Apple's big advance makes no sense. You can hook an Apple TV to ANY set today. You can't run OS X or iOS on any computer or mobile device today, that's the difference.

----------

Ford sells the better car. If it wasn't they would have sold fewer than Aston Martin. Buyers weigh all the features and benefits when making a purchase. Price is a big one. Servicability is another.

Apple's stores and Genius Bar service often wins over price.

He didn't say "best for the price", genius. He said "better car".

 

[Icaras]

Did I not mention the iPad as well? I'm sure less than 1% of iPad users care about the light bleed they are experiencing with their iPad 2.

The real, real fact is - apple should get their act together in fixing the light bleed issue. And that may only come with the transition to OLED technology.

What exactly do sales figures tell us? Ford sell more cars than Aston Martin, yet we both know which is the better car.

I don't have the funds to buy an Aston Martin, which is why I'd go for the Ford. Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Again, they have no act to clean up. Sales show this.

 

[aohus]

What you fail to realize is that an Apple Television would provide NO user benefit over any other television. So it would compete on TECH SPECS and TECH PERFORMANCE alone. Other Apple products succeed because the only way to get the Mac OS X user experience is on a Mac...the only way to get the sublime iOS interface and hardware/software integration on a tablet is on an iPad...and the only way to stream your iTunes library and watch Netflix on your TV using a polished Apple interface is with an Apple TV.

BUT, televisions are completely different! It all comes down to refresh rates, contrast, black levels, etc. There is intense competition in premium sets and razor-thin margins. Apple would have NOTHING to gain by entering that market. To say that building the Apple TV into a TV set will be Apple's big advance makes no sense. You can hook an Apple TV to ANY set today. You can't run OS X or iOS on any computer or mobile device today, that's the difference.

oh, i'm not saying that Apple would control the way the panels are built. I'm just saying that, like previous rumors have stated, Apple would partner with an existing panel supplier, (Sharp, LG, Samsung) and supply them with AppleTV inside their TV's a la GoogleTV with Sony.

But you're totally right, why would Apple go into a low margin business.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

I smell Kodak

FYI: Kodak has large areas of research and patents in the OLED field of study. I think Apple won't be the first to bite from this solution until OLED is as readily available as S-IPS/H-IPS panels with backlit LED.

 

[Leaping Tortois]

Yes, and BetaMax was superior to VHS, HD-DVD was superior to Blu-ray, AIFF CDs are superior to MP3 downloads, and Macs are far superior to Windowz PCs. People usually vote with their pocketbooks, placing initial cost of ownership at the top of the list. Apple's ability to get consumers to place perceived value above initial price is a great accomplishment. They're also focusing their products on what the masses will buy, not what the elete few are interested in.

I don't know where you get that HD-DVD Sentiment from. Blu-Ray was the superior technology, HD-DVD was an advancement on DVD which made it an easy, and therefore cheaper, expansion on DVD, but blu-ray won out in the end, being the more expensive product. Otherwise I agree with your other statements. I honestly think that bluray won simply because saying "I'm going to get a blu-ray" is far easier and more catchy than saying "I'm going to get a HD-DVD"

 

[kiljoy616]

Good I'm glad. OLED has no place in a hand held portable. My Incredible with OLED got a good dose of burn in when I decided I wanted to leave the screen on when I was using it as a music player. Also the power savings isn't significant. The only advantage was contrast but that only goes so far when the screen isn't bright enough to see very well outside without shading it thoroughly.

Well said OLED does have burn in issues and that for me is a no no since leaving my ipad and iphone on is something I do all the time when I am at my desk. It doubles as my family picture, so many people envious of that muhahahaha.

Maybe in a decade it will be something we can use, for now I trust Apple engineer to know what they are doing and not have hype cloud their judgment.

 

[lilo777]

Well said OLED does have burn in issues and that for me is a no no since leaving my ipad and iphone on is something I do all the time when I am at my desk. It doubles as my family picture, so many people envious of that muhahahaha.

Maybe in a decade it will be something we can use, for now I trust Apple engineer to know what they are doing and not have hype cloud their judgment.

Are you sure it's Apple's engineer that made this decision. Have you considered a possibility that Apple simply does not have access to OLED technology (as appears to be the case)?

 

[Leaping Tortois]

I have a Samsung GS2, the SAMOLED+ Screen is brilliant, the colours are vibrant, the black levels are great, and believe me when I say it's one of those things that once you've had the black levels, you won't want to give them up. One of the other big advantages of the SAMOLED+ Screen is that I can still get a decent picture when in direct Australia sunlight ('Cause Australia has a different Sun to everyone else).

I think the biggest issues are that they can't be produced quickly enough, this means that they're demand would soar and the prices would go up too high. Until the manufacturing capabilities are introduced apple won't introduce OLED's onto ANY iOS devices.

In terms of a television, I don't think apple would consider that for a VERY long time, while a mobile phone is generally used for a year or two before people move to a new one, TV sets are generally a 5-10year purchase, and the decay rates of the blue OLED pixels means they generally won't last more than 30,000 hours. This is fine for a phone or tablet, but not for a television.

 

[kiljoy616]

Ford sells the better car. If it wasn't they would have sold fewer than Aston Martin. Buyers weigh all the features and benefits when making a purchase. Price is a big one. Servicability is another.

Apple's stores and Genius Bar service often wins over price.

Ford does not sell better car just more car. If you want to know which is better ask your self recall statistics that where you know which is better. Just because most people are poor does not make ford a better maker.

 

[aohus]

I don't know where you get that HD-DVD Sentiment from. Blu-Ray was the superior technology, HD-DVD was an advancement on DVD which made it an easy, and therefore cheaper, expansion on DVD, but blu-ray won out in the end, being the more expensive product. Otherwise I agree with your other statements. I honestly think that bluray won simply because saying "I'm going to get a blu-ray" is far easier and more catchy than saying "I'm going to get a HD-DVD"

you can fit more data on Blu-Ray disc than on HD-DVD.

iirc, HD-DVD max was 30GB, Blu-Ray 50GB

 

[DanteMann]

Really? An Apple TV? Or do you mean a TV with someone else's technology (sharp, Samsung, LG, etc...) with only Apple's name on it? And if Apple does brand such a TV, what shape will it be? It Definitely can't be rectangular, as that already exists and according to Apple's logic, it would only be copying if they brand such a device with a shape that already exists. As I said many times before, Apple makes NOTHING. Let me correct that, Apple only makes cases for packaging. They only package the innovations of the true OEM's. So how is there any excitement for a TV that is someone else's technology with only Apple's name on it? Surely there has to be a limit to the blind following.

 

[JAT]

you can fit more data on Blu-Ray disc than on HD-DVD.

iirc, HD-DVD max was 30GB, Blu-Ray 50GB

Yes. IOW, HDDVD was 15GB, BD 25GB. Per layer, which is the way to compare. Both made ludicrous claims about 4, 6, 8 layer discs, so max was never really identified. I don't see any such discs, though. Other than this, they were virtually identical, both using the same formats for video and audio, which in the end is what matters to users. (whether they are geeks and know it, or "normal" people and just want to watch) And HDDVD did have one major issue in its favor, as hinted above. It was easier and cheaper to manufacture at first, which is basically what made it survive at all. (today this likely wouldn't matter) The reason it lost was big business, plain and simple. Sony had the better hand that time, managed to win on marketing. Marketing to studios and partners, that is, not talking about marketing to you and me.

And Beta was not superior to VHS in any way except physical size, and that was barely.

These ancient arguments get tiresome. At least, when they are incorrect.

 

[Burger Thing]

Especially considering Super AMOLED is supposed to fix the sunlight glare issues of previous OLED and AMOLED screens. Now I didn't get to play with the phone outside in sunlight (it was the phone of some guy I knew and we were indoors in a restaurant) so I can't confirm the performance for that scenario, but really, the black and colors were much better than what I've seen even from IPS displays.

I have the Galaxy S 2 and while the blacks are really nice, the colors are way too saturated. It might be a software calibration issue but on most of my pictures especially the skin tones look horrible. It reminds me a but if the old Canon compact cameras, where pictures were way too vibrant and saturated to give (or better: to fool) the impression of a "great" picture.

And in sunlight the screen is as useless as any other. Too be fair here: in Hong Kong you get a very decent amount of sunlight, so it will be a tad hard on any equipment.

 

[toddybody]

Id rather see 300+ DPI on the iPad 3, with a decent anti-glare coating. New tech standards are wonderful, when fully realized and implemented well...

 

[JAT]

I didn't mean to use it functionally as an "alarm clock", I meant have it turn on at a time that I set and begin displaying the things above.

Ok. Well, a lot of TVs have On timers, actually. But not all.

Also, it is not a tablet as described today, my iPad doesn't do any of that (except HULU), it doesn't even have a built in alarm clock. Also, a tablet is small format that I cannot see from across the room. Unless you are going to argue an iPad is just a big iPod touch? The form makes all the difference.

So other than not leaving the TV on all night, what else was ludicrous?

Your iPad doesn't play music? Do video chat? (well, I guess if not an iPad 2) Etc? Sure it does. But, my point wasn't that you should set an iPad up across the room. It was that you are asking for all of that functionality for $99 when the cheapest one is $499. Not this year....

 

[Hallivand]

...Retina Television....

 

[Mak47]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A5274d Safari/7534.48.3)

We are not going to see an apple branded television. Apple only enters a market it can add something new to.

I think if we see an Apple branded TV it will be a co-marketing kind of thing. An already successful TV maker may opt to build in Apple TV (wouldn't be hard to do, they don't need much room) with their product.

Apple is the most valuable brand in the world, an "Acme" with Apple TV would add perceived value to the product without adding much cost. Apple would benefit from some probably small licensing fees and the ability to sell content to those who buy it.

If it were opened up for development a robust App environment would likely develop quickly and it would far outshine any competing product on the market.

Apple TV is pretty cool, it would be better if it had an app ecosystem, and it would be way cooler if it were just built into the TV with the ability to get all the content you want from apps & iTunes with no need for traditional cable TV service. That would be the big market change for Apple-not so much the product--but the way the content is delivered.

 

[AidenShaw]

And Beta was not superior to VHS in any way except physical size, and that was barely.

As a Beta owner, I clearly disagree.

In addition to the well supported superiority of Beta picture quality, the mechanisms were very different.

If you hit "play reverse" on your Beta deck - the picture would pause for an instant, then start playing in reverse.

Hitting "play reverse" on a VHS deck, however, stopped the video, made some loud clunking noises, then after a while started to play the video in reverse.

However, when I got my first Sony VHS deck - it could reverse as smoothly as a Sony Beta deck. Sent all the other decks to the toxic waste site.

 

[sarge]

FYI: Kodak has large areas of research and patents in the OLED field of study. I think Apple won't be the first to bite from this solution until OLED is as readily available as S-IPS/H-IPS panels with backlit LED.

Kodak sold their OLED patents years ago.

 

[cvaldes]

I think if we see an Apple branded TV it will be a co-marketing kind of thing. An already successful TV maker may opt to build in Apple TV (wouldn't be hard to do, they don't need much room) with their product.

This doesn't make sense.

Apple doesn't co-market products. They want full control over the design cycle, the marketing message, etc.

 

[KingCrimson]

How big will Apple's cash hoard get? To infinity or when the economy totally collapses?

 

[nutritious]

OLED is fine as long as you only want to keep your tv for a couple years. Burn-in and color shifting are major problems for OLED tech.

Color shift is not an issue with OLED displays. If you said LCDs, however, you'd be right.