One Step Closer to OLED

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jonnylink, Oct 4, 2007.

  1. jonnylink macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #1
    I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but Sony just brought a OLED TV to market (Japan only).

    I wonder how much longer it'll be before we see one of these beauties plugged into a MBP
     
  2. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #2
    It will take a while until the tech is good enough: The biggest technical problem for OLEDs is the limited lifetime of the organic materials. In particular, blue OLEDs typically have lifetimes of around 5,000 hours when used for flat-panel displays, which is lower than typical lifetimes of LCD displays currently rated for about 60,000 hours, depending on manufacturer and model.
     
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    I didn't see how much it will cost but I'm guessing that it is not cheap enough to be used in the MBP for a few more years.
     
  4. mikeheenan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    #4
    How many posts a week are we going to see from people wanting to know when OLED screens will be in MBP's? Lol :D
     
  5. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #5
    Mine was more a rhetorical question.:p Plus there's the whole TV news angle. ...I doubt anyone can predict when we'll see OLED with any real accuracy.

    Like I said, I don't think anyone can predict when accurately... especially not me, but I'd say it will be much less than a few years. I'd say less than two. But what do I know? I could be way off.

    Especially via cnet news.com:
    All the same, an OLED TV out in the market is a big step towards something really great
     
  6. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #6
    I'm so sick of hearing about OLED screens. The deal with them is they're CHEAP to make (or at least would be mass produced). They're garbage-super short life span.

    The future is LCDs with LED backlighting. Those numbers you see for LCDs are because the florescent backlight eventually goes out. Not an issue with LED. After using the new Macbook Pro, I can't wait until they've got LED lighting in every computer and TV.
     
  7. Jiddick ExRex macrumors 65816

    Jiddick ExRex

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Location:
    Roskilde, DK
    #7
    Or maybe it's just a question about technology? They need better lifetime so research will go into this. When the lifetime is approved (around 2-3 years use), then I want to see these babies. They are nothing short of amazing.
     
  8. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #8
    That isn't the future, that is now. Plasmas and LCD's had junk life spans when they started out too, that can be fix as the tech ages.

    This ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1buy3N_Fvsg ) might help you understand one of the many reasons you are wrong.
     
  9. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #9
    2-3 years is a joke. And what's so amazing about them?

    Plasma's a dead end technology too, and I've never heard of lifespan issues in LCDs. The only catch with them is the length of time their backlight lasts, which is fast becoming a moot point as LED lighting becomes more affordable.

    Why would I care about folding a display in any main display? I'm sure there's some esoteric use for that, but I can't see it as useful even in a normal handheld device.
     
  10. Jiddick ExRex macrumors 65816

    Jiddick ExRex

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Location:
    Roskilde, DK
    #10
    2-3 years for a laptop 200 $ off because of the cheaper OLED is more than adequate for many laptop users. Especially some mac users who changes laptops like they change socks.

    What is not amazing about cheap manufactoring cost, almost zero battery drain, 1.000.000:1 contrast and a viewing angle for [Exaggerating]360 degrees[/Exaggerating]. Gee, I don't know Bob... :rolleyes:
     
  11. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #11
    MAYBE if you could replace the screen for super cheap as often as you needed to, and if disposing of the old one didn't have a bad environmental impact.

    And contrast ratios are kind of suspect. In theory they're worse on LCDs than on CRTs, etc., but in practice most people prefer the image quality on an LCD by a wide margin to a CRT, etc. It's not really an apples to apples comparison.

    I'm just tired of the cult of OLED.
     
  12. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #12
    If Apple could make the screen a user-replacable part, much like the battery is, then I could see it working.
     
  13. Scaryclouds macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    #13
    Once OLED technology matures it will likely be the last major advancement in 2-D viewing technology. OLED are super thin, super energy efficient, can be made super flexible, super light, can support true black, have around 170 degree viewing angle, and are dirt cheap to make. I may be wrong, but I really don't see how 2-D viewing technology can get much better, other than building upon OLED technology.
     
  14. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #14
    I'm certainly not aware of having joined a cult. I read the news is all. I read about this and think it is an interesting and exciting tech development. In fact the more I read about it (because some people seem to have an unfounded grudge against OLED) the more I like it.

    Sony's new OLED TV....
    and while it may be an exciting development, it isn't exciting for Mac's just yet.
     
  15. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #15
    I've never met anyone with an "unfounded grudge against OLED". Just people who have this bizare obsession with it.

    The specs you list are...strange. 1000x faster? Even if that's true, so what? Why would we need 1000x faster than LCD? What video source would use that?

    30,000 hours? That's absolutely pathetic. CCFLs destroy that, let alone LED.

    Less power draw? Maybe, but how about compared to LED lighting? I doubt it's less then.

    Why are you excited by something which is inferior to what we already have? THAT'S the cult of OLED.
     
  16. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #16
    Look in the mirror friend. You hate something that you haven't done the research on... and you keep referring to some imagined cult.

    Why? Read the rest of the sentence, it eliminates the blur that LCD has when things move quickly. This is real. You won't notice the blur all the time, but if you pay attention during fast motion it is pretty obvious. And why would you not believe these facts? Look at the Associate Press article if you don't believe me. But maybe you know better since you have done research? Please show me anything to contradict this fact.

    I don't know how long CCFL's last, but LCD's last about 50,000 from what I've read. Considering OLED is just getting started why do you think OLED wont be able to match that in the future? I'll tell you this much as well— my LCD on my PowerBook died after just 5 years... that is half of what OLED can get now. Please explain why a ten year eight hour-a-day life span is "absolutely pathetic."

    No not *maybe* it definitely draws less power than LCD. It is a fact not a theory. Mileage almost definitely varies though.

    Please cite the ways in which OLED is inferior. Aside from things that will develop in the next couple years (like the life-span and cost) which will improve I can't think of a single way in which this new technology is inferior.

    My point is that you haven't really offered any solid examples or reasons why OLED is bad. I don't even care that much about OLED because it is a few years away, but I find it unnerving that anyone would oppose something with such vigor while knowing nearly nothing about it. I don't know what happened to make you hate the concept of OLED so much, but I suggest that if you don't like to hear about it don't read threads about OLED. And if you want people to agree with you try citing clear examples and link to things that prove you points.

    I'm ready to listen to your points with an open mind, but you haven't come anywhere near convincing me you have any idea at all about what you are talking about.
     
  17. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #17
    What "research" would I need to do to magically decide OLED was better than LCD? How about actually telling me why, since you claim it is.

    This isn't an issue on modern good quality LCDs, and will be even further improved.

    First, OLED isn't just starting out, it's been around for years, and still only lasts a few years at most (though companies have claimed but not proven longer life spans). Second, CCFLs last longer than any OLED (even manufacturer's claims), and are the weak link in LCD screen technology. Except of course they aren't, since you can use any backlighting technology.

    No, the numbers given were for CCFL technology, not any possible implementation of LCD screens.

    Aside from that they burn out even faster than Plasma? You're just glossing over that? That's always been why OLED is worthless for virtually any implementation.

    Regarding the rest of this-why do you think I "know nearly nothing about it"? You're the one who thinks this is a new technology. It's not, it's been on the market for years. You're talking about replacing a technology that's shown rapid advancement for at least the last decade or two, with no real downsides, with a technology that despite years of work continues to have the shortest lifespan of any display technology. This isn't 1995, the "problems" you've listed with LCD aren't real in 2007.
     
  18. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #18
    Please read everything I've posted. It is a fact that OLED is more energy efficient, has higher contrast ratio, is thinner, lighter, more flexible (harder to break in some ways), and is faster. Where it clearly can't compete yet is price, size, and to a lesser degree life-span. Three things that can and most likely will improve.

    See this is what I am talking about, you say things without backing them up. Why should I believe that? Just because you say it? The best I found to support you (since you can't seem to do it yourself) is that the Sharp AQUOS LC-52D92U LCD HDTV (priced around $3000+) "largely eliminates" blur. (home theater mag) So, it seems that maybe it is an issue on all LCD's still but not as much on really expensive top of the line LCD. Oh, and I can tell you for certain there is blur on my MacBook Pro. Worse of all you say that LCD can improve, but somehow believe that OLED can not, or at least ignore that it can and will improve.

    Yes, OLED was first discovered in the 1950's, but it was only in 1996 that people figured out how to put it in a polymer. (wikipedia) And LCD has been around since 1888, LCD has been widely used in things like watches and portable video games since the 70's the first active matrix LCD was produced in 1972. (wikipedia)

    Maybe. Where is your proof?

    So what I am hearing is that is all you've got. Okay.

    So, you think OLED TV's have been on the market for years? Then why is Sony's OLED TV (the one that was announced to be on sale in December of 2007) the first OLED TV on the market?

    First of all power consumption, viewing angles, contrast ratios, inaccurate colors (though LED backlighting is working on eliminating that), and motion blur are downsides. But the fact is I never said OLED would replace LCD today, or tomorrow, or even in 2009 or 3009. I think this TV is a step towards *possibly* replacing LCD. Maybe LCD will somehow magically overcome it's drawbacks and make OLED look silly, but right now it looks to me like OLED will eventually overcome LCD. Maybe 2010 will be its year. Maybe 2020. I don't know that it will at all, but I think it might. And you still haven't shown me anything to dissuade me.

    I agree that in terms Sony's claims of using 40% less power than LCD there aren't clear numbers being cited. I don't like that, but I can promise you they didn't use 1995 numbers to come up with that figure. What's more I feel pretty confident saying that OLED is more energy efficient than any LCD on the market. I've already shown that blur *is* still a problem in 2007. And I think we can all agree that contrast, viewing angles, color accuracy (even with some LED LCD's), and size are pretty clearly fact. So what other problems are you talking about?

    One issue I have with what you are saying is that people should just ignore OLED and stick with LCD. I don't think there is anything unhealthy about keeping tabs on evolving technology. I don't see any harm in hoping that something better might come along or in being interested in what new technology has to offer along with what it can not. You made a good point that the life-span isn't there yet, but then you go on this rant about how OLED is worthless and that there are cults blindly worshiping it (which wasn't at all appropriate to the discussion) and that is just silly. The only person on here that seems to be blind to anything but one technology is you. Did LCD save your life? Why can't you even consider that OLED might be better in some ways, even if it isn't better in ways that make it practical at present?

    But my biggest issue is that you're still long on claims and short on facts.

    If you respond again and fail to back up your amazing claims I think I might have to just ignore it. The only thing that keeps me responding in the first place is that I hope you might see that I am not pushing OLED but pushing you to engage in useful discussion and make a valid, well defined, clearly cited point. But all you seem to do is repeat "life-span" and then make unfounded claims, some of which I've shown are inaccurate, other's I've just chosen to ignore since I don't feel like spending the time to do your research and prove you might not be entirely on the mark.

    Thank you for writing so much and I hope that you care about truly important things as much as you care about OLED vs LCD. (I'm being sincere here)
     
  19. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #19
    Actually that's not a fact. You've listed a figure that's compared to CCFL, not LED backlighting.

    The rest of that I've already addressed-actually I've already addressed everything in this post. Amazingly my magic LCD screens I own don't have any of the supposed issues you've listed with LCDs. Probably because they were made this decade (alright that's being slight factitious, but anything decent in the last few years...)

    I'd seriously love an explanation for OLED fanboys. It's truly one of the strangest phenomenons of the last few years.
     
  20. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #20
    One last time: All I've ever asked is that you support your claims. Nobody worth talking to will just believe a person at face value without support or credentials. You have neither.
     
  21. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #21
    That video is really cool. I never realised how thin OLED displays could be! Really amazing.

    I'm going to look up how they work - I'm fasinated by this!
     
  22. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #22
    Support what claims? Why should I have to support claims that are common knowledge? Haven't you owned a modern LCD TV/monitor? I could point out the obvious here-you haven't supported your claims.
     
  23. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #23
    Okay, this is ridiculous. I have cited multiple sources for every claim I've made. There are links attached to each one. Citations are support.

    On the other hand you just say things like "You've listed a figure that's compared to CCFL, not LED backlighting" or respond to my point about blur with "This isn't an issue on modern good quality LCDs" without ever showing any numbers or citing any sources. As far as I can tell you are guessing.

    I've seen LCD TV's at friend's and family's houses all of which which have blur, okay color, and mediocre blacks. I've seen my PowerBook and MacBook Pro, both of which have very decent color, contrast, and brightness— all of which could be better and both of which also have blur.
     
  24. jonnylink thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #24
    Yeah, they are neat. Clearly not ready for the big times, but a neat development nonetheless.

    It also opens up quite a few possibilities, like ebooks that are paper thin, flexible, and have high enough contrast to keep away eye strain.
     
  25. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #25
    Good modern LCDs do not suffer from the problems you're claiming. I don't need "proof" to back that up, anymore than I need to "prove" that LCDs are made in color now :D . I don't know the capabilities of low end TVs, and would suspect you're comparing poor quality (or old) LCDs to theoretical capabilities of OLED screens.

    Laptop screens vary in quality, but all are-for whatever reason-far, far, far behind good desktop monitors and TVs. A 25ms response time is common, for example, as are much worse viewing angles, etc.

    And as I already said, that power figure you gave-real or not-is comparing CCFLs against OLED. LED technology continues to improve and get implemented into more screens (not that CCFLs are terrible in terms of power consumption or longevity).
     

Share This Page