Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Debuts Nano-Emissive Flat Screen
brain1 writes "PhysOrg is reporting that Motorola has developed a 5" flat-screen prototype display that uses carbon nanotubes. The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400. The technology uses standard color TV phosphors, has a response time equaling CRTs', all in a package 1/8" thick. The display characteristics meet or exceed CRTs', such as fast response time, wide viewing angle, and wide operation temperature. All these are areas that LCDs are weak in. Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?"
but does anybody have screenshots of this thing running ? Please no "simulated screen" screenshots that I see so often in bestbuy/compusa ads :-P
This technology would be decent if it addresses the aforementioned problems, but isn't much of an improvement if it looks blotchy (what is this called, banding?) where colors are similar hue.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Organic Monitor? Now I can ditch my old LSD, errrrrm, LCD. Psych dude.
Looks like it's going to be a race to the finish line on who can bring us the cheapest HDTV and Flat panel technology. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend which had quotes from the chief engineer of displays at Sony where he was talking about a break through processing system they are working on which they expect will drop the price by screen as much as 45%. What they weren't sure of is when it will be ready to roll out.
The company I work for (DuPont) is working on a different avenue. We're persusing OLEDs to replace plasma and LCDs. We'll see how things go.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Sure, it sounds great. And there's even a working prototype and cost estimate for a 40" model. But how far off is that possibility? No mention in the article.
Right after all those the super-advanced-high-density memory technologies we keep hearing about hit the market... call it late 2012.
I keep trying to come up with something witty to say, except I can't stop fantasizing about having a 40" LCD screen. Well, maybe two side-by-side for life-sized pictures of little people.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Why do HD receivers still cost more than the average ones? The cable plans with HD are more than the ones without..Getting the Screen cheaper is great, but there are still a lot of costs associated with HDTV which end up being more than Joe Sixpack can't afford.
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
I'd still say its a bit high to be considered the "low cost necessary to bring HDTV to the masses."
I for could probably see myself paying that much for it, as would a large amount of geeks and/or yuppies. However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality. Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes, there isn't much on teevee worth watching in HDTV.
Games and DVDs on the other hand...
Cheap is good! :)
This is great news! I mean, by the time this thing hits mass market, the Star Wars Penultimate DVD edition will come out with extra special, previously unreleased on the 50928398 other special editions footage, and I'll be able to finally see Natalie Portman, covered in hot grits, in stunning, hi-def. Hellllloooooo MOTO!
400 bucks buys a used car...I won't really consider these affordable until they're down to 200 or less.
Being a gamer, I haven't made the jump to lcd. I want different resolutions and the resizing to lcd's one res is an eyesore to me. Not to mention lcd's other limitations like ghosting of fast moving images.
also, how is this going to compare to plasma displays? the only mention of them in the artical is when it says they will be cheaper. considering that plasma is considered the high-end of displays, and there's barely any mention of it, one may think that this is nothing more than a press release and not "real" news...
For just about every piece of technology I've always found that its always overhyped in some way (purely the fault of marketers). I wouldn't hold my breath over an announcement like this, while yes it may be very interesting and perhaps be a forward-moving technology for the industry, I have heard "this will make ___ cheaper, and is better" far too many times to start going "omg, now I must migrate everything over to it!". Time always reveals the winners.
They'll keep improving this stuff until we're all wearing XHDTV contacts or retinal implants or having our video directly beamed to the pleasure center ^W^W visual cortex.
But you are correct that it will be fascinating to see if the technology stabilizes on a flat-screen format.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I'd really like the flat panel technologies to get cheaper, but we've been hearing about it for a long time. I keep reading articles about new display technologies that never actually bear fruit. This new prototype from Motorolla sounds promising...$400 for a 40-inch HDTV sounds like a bargin. I'll buy one as soon as I read about it on my "electronic ink" newspaper. :^)
/impatient
/sorry about the fark slashes
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
I for one would like to see some of these technologies start to mature already, we've been hearing about new display technologies for at least 5 years now, but nothing serious has come into the mass-market except for postage stamp sized devices. Which while may be good for digital cameras and cell phones are not practical for TV sets.
Currently the two ruling flatscreen TV technologies plainly suck. LCDs have horrible viewing angles, images smear or are aliased due to slow rates while Plasma have degrading brightness (usual plasmas can lose half its brightness in around 6 years and die in 12) and are way too expensive.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
I suppose this is made possible by the multi-walled cardbon fiber nanotube mass production facilities that are slowly going on-line. Is this where it all starts? Maybe I will look back on these next few years as the beginning of our ascendancy into technological wizardry? I tend to get ahead of myself, anyway.
a)PhysOrg is just a slightly more subtle version of PR Newswire. Note there's no author. Slashdot, please stop linking to crap like this. Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.
b)Manufactured cost is NOT market cost. Not even close. If a NE display lasts longer than plasma and looks equally nice- you can be damn sure it will cost MORE to the consumer.
c)They claim longer lifetime, but no range/estimate is given, even though they surely know what it is. If it's a year or two more than plasma (which is lucky to last 3-4 years), pardon me while I let out a big 'ol yawn.
d)A five-inch unit was produced because, most likely, they haven't been able to get high enough yield rates to do a 42" display. Call us when you've got something that actually resembles your target application in terms of scale.
Please help metamoderate.
This will *NOT* be a Flat CRT. Which does it's magic with the use of a flyback transformer, and a shadowmask. When done really well with good content you get an image where you cannot distinguish the individual pixels.
This will have similar issues that CRT's have. It will have visible SDE and generally will not have good close-up performance characteristics compared to CRT or LCD.
I do welcome our 400 dollar pricetags, but it looks like it will be a direct race with Plasma which has already dramatically improved the phosphor half-life (to that of as good or better than CRT's), reduced and removed burn-in, and good brightness and viewing angles. LCD's have one last gasp with Lumileds which look to finally improve brightness and color so that TV doesn't look like watching a flourescent tube. I think you will see 42" 16x9 for $1000 next year. I think Plasma wins. FED are going to be too far behind the engineering curves.
Many people choose LCDs in order to reduce eye strain. Unless I'm missing something, this seems not to get that advantage.
The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
until prices drop to under $500 for a useable commercial HDTV, it will never hit full introduction, no matter how much the media industry tries to change it.
Evidence - the reaction of reps just last week delaying required signal death for non-HDTV signal, after a firestorm of consumer complaints at forcing overpriced HDTVs down our gullets.
So, this has been a long time coming.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
But I'm not.
Every new display technology in the last 10 years either:
1. Is so astonishingly far from making it to market that I'll likely be blind before it gets there. (OLED, except for cell phones and the like)
2. Is touted as a quality, affordable solution, then is introduced only at the mid-high end (DLP, I'm looking at you)
3. Is never heard from again. (too many examples to list.)
I want something that's thinner and lighter than a CRT, without plasma burn-in, doesn't suffer from LCD's horrible color gamut, is sharper and cheaper than DLP, and lasts longer than OLED.
Bleh, maybe when I'm dead.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
The price to consumers isn't going to be the cost plus some small markup. The price to consumers will be whatever the manufacturer figures will maximize their profit, which could be quite high considering the demand. They ain't no charity. That's very cool technology, do you think they would invest in that if they thought they couldn't patent it ? ;-)
I'm not about to spend $2000+ on a small HDTV. It's just not worth it. But if a decent sized one with a low cost is available that also doesn't suck balls, I'm so there.
I love how this got moderated "troll". Folks- digital TV is supposedly "mandated" for switchover. Except nobody's making cheap digital TVs- so people aren't buying.
People also aren't buying because current plasma and LCD units just DO NOT LAST! We have a TV in our house that is at least 15 years old, and works just fine (yes, it's got an IR remote, yes, it tunes basic cable, etc). While Motorola's press release hasn't said much about exactly how long the lifetime will be on these, if the TV industry wants consumers to buy 'em in numbers large enough to make the "mandate" possible- they'd better make them a tad more durable.
Please help metamoderate.
Until these things have run for a few thousand hours, we won't know if they have burn-in problems. I would expect the carbon nanotubes to erode at the ends due to the extremely high electronic fields and for carbon tube fragments to eventually poison the phosphors.
... longer lifetimes," but I'm always cynical of breathless promises of what some future technology "could" bring.
TFA touts that this "could offer
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?
.... profi ... hang on, look what we've invented!
Not if Motorola has anything to do with it.
MOTOROLA CORPORATE STRATEGY circa 1930 (CONFIDENTIAL)
1. Invent something brilliant.
2. Overprice it.
3. Watch your competitors undercut you with better products
4. Produce a "budget" model to compete with said competitors
5. Get branded the lame duck of the industry
6. Claim to have invented it and therefore have a god-given right to overcharge and underfeature it.
7. Umm
Senior executives' strategies usually outlive technologies. Unfortunately.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
I get macro emissive after eating beans-n-franks.
Another noticeable thing in the article was that LCD electronics are low cost, but what about low power?
If I can get a 40 inch HDTV screen that uses as much energy as a lightbulb, it has a major impact both on heat and power usage.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I believe that yours says Etch-a-Sketch on the side!
-- Weird Al
splunge (n) -- A good idea.. but it could be lousy... and I'm not being indecisive!
When I look arround my living room, all I see are Japanese/Korean electronics. Nothing is made in my own USA! But I know that as Americans, we invented the transistor that enbles all the magic arround us to happen.
Everyone forgets the wee little projector.
1. It scales well (mine was a 60" at my last house and is a 90" now).
2. Viewing angle is 180 degrees.
3. The bulb is replacable so it dies before the birghtness is an issue.
4. Cost! For $1,500 you can have an HD monster screen TV.
This doesn't work in homes with an always on TV, due to bulb life, but otherwise it's a hell of a solution.
PS - A $400 manufacturing cost will still be a couple few grand at the store.
Ok, I'll bite - are you in the Boy Scouts, the Army or jail?
:-)
Last time I did that it was comic books with a flashlight and I was 9....
Not sure if it was intended, but thanks for the laugh.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Maybe they decided to show this technology in its best light. (Can't blame them for that.) Does their choice demonstrate some inherent limitation of the technology. They are predicting something with a relatively low number of pixels per square inch.
Is resolution somehow limited for such technology?
The article mentions nothing of what the technology will still cost us consumers?
That may be the first time I've seen Lily Tomlin quoted in a sig.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
...a brain.
Eyestrain from CRTs is due to the scanning of the electron gun sweeping back and forth, up and down, across the screen.
There is no such thing in ANY flat-panel display, because they are all active matrix, with each pixel activated independently by its own dedicated electronics behind it.
I've heard some of these flat panels only last ~5 years, and aren't at all repairable. That sucks for a variety of reasons. It'd be nice (for everyone but tv manufacturers) if they lasted longer.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Rather than making these things thinner and cheaper all the time, I really wish they'd concentrate on keeping the prices about the same, or maybe a bit lower, as they are right now, while simultaneously increasing the resolution. It would be cool to have a 2048x1024 display the size of a PDA. That would mean that one of those cinema displays or whatever would have resolution measured in gigapixels or something like that. And that would be good for a variety of different types of work. Then, they can concentrate on lowering prices.
As a few other have hinted at, the original statement is highly misleading. Yes, the cost of the actual parts is a factor in determining the price of a product - but it's only one of many. It's effect on the price is also inversely proportional to how much the item is a 'luxury' item or a 'necessary item.'
So need to worry if you just spent $5k on a plasma which cost the manufacturer $3k to produce. Because if it cost them only $400 to produce it, they would still have charged you $5k...and rightfully so as you were willing to pay that amount in the first place.
So this is definitely exciting news for TV manufacturers as it will serve nicely to increase the profit margin. When will we benefit? When nobody wants to pay as much for a plasma anymore - and, more importantly, doesn't.
Near-infinite brightness [...] infinite sharpness?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
It's carbon nanotube - so maybe the terminology isn't really exact.
Methinks it is not B-movies and horror flicks that you don't want your mother to catch you watching...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
CRT:
Very Fast Response Time
Perfect Viewing Angles
Massive and Heavy
LCD:
Lower Resolutions
Bad Viewing Angles
Bad Response Times (though recent 8ms panels reduce this immensely)
Expensive
Very Nice Colors
Thin and Light
Doesn't hurt the eye
Plasma:
Dies in 5 years due to gas leakage
Rear-projector:
Yea these suck from the sides or close-up so let's not even mention these
Carbon-nanotube (CNT) based Motorola Display:
Because it uses phosphors like in CRTs, good brightness
Fast response time
Good viewing angle
Thin and light
Cheap
DOESNT NEED BACKLIGHT (no more washed-out colors in sunlight)
Longevity compared to plasmas
Though this is a 5" prototype, it is a 5" section of a larger 42" CNT grid for a large HD display, so stop bitching about this being 5 inches
Other notes: Since CNTs are small and the phosphor technology is the same as in CRTs (excite phosphor atoms to give off photons by making appropriate electrical connections using switches...in this case, CNT's) I am assuming that we can actually get large high-resolution monitors (this one is 1280 x 720) perhaps just like the crazy CRTs with 2XXX by 1XXX resolution.
LCD gamut is not poor because it is digitally driven. It's poor because LCD is a backlit technology.
When an LCD screen tries to show "black" a large portion of the backlight is still showing through. Moreover, this varies across the screen.
This is an emissive technology using the same phosphors as a CRT. Banding might be a problem, but it's insignificant compared to the color range problems on LCDs. Banding is tolerable in many applications. Shimmering and lack of contrast is not. Most LCD manufacturers don't push to avoid banding because the contrast problem makes the LCD unsuitable for color sensitive work anyway.
In fact, this should get *better* range than a CRT, because any cell can turn completely off. Any but the highest quality CRT has a problem with rise time and such. The brightness level of parts of the image affect other parts.
If you read the article you see this: ...the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400.
That's the MANUFACTURED cost. That's not what you'd be paying for it at Best Buy. Wholesale price would probably be at least double that, and then you're looking at probably another 50% markup on top of that to give you the retail price.
So really you're probably going to be paying $1000-1500 when all is said and done. Currently an HD flat panel is going to be in the $3000+ price range. So that's still a tremendous improvement, but it's a far cry from $400.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
$400 price does not include health costs for workers in nanotube-screen manufacturing facilities or the costs of preventing such illnesses.
Now, if someone can find a cheap way to handle nanoparticles and keep the health risks managable, then we may see $400 TVs.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400.
Sure it may be $400 but then go the store and look at that price tag: at least double. They know it would still sell so why would they lower the price? They're not dumb.
LCD was meant to be this great thing. It ended up being crap. For anything serious it just isn't that good. It
Will it consume less power? Generate less heat? Will it have better update times? And, will the colours look less washed out?
If at least 3/4 of this are not solved when this displays will become commercially available, i'm sticking with the mature CRT.
So will these cause health problems when dumped in the landfills, when a bulldozer shatters them and releases nanotube fragments into the air and soil? Is anybody thinking about this?
Notwithstanding that this is a press release and quite likely vaporware, manufactured cost is not retail by far. The manufactured cost of a dual-layer DVD drive has been well under $10 for quite some time.
Add to this variuous overhead from shipping to marketing and, of course, profit! and retail may be 3-4x as much. That might be an advance, but as noted, this is only a press release which says they might have a product someday and the manufacture cost could, if they're really lucky and everything goes perfectly, be under $400.
Nothing to wet your diapers about, young SlashDotter.
So yeah, this is neato, and I'm especially happy about CRT phosphors. I'm a sucker for the color richness of a CRT. I hope it doesn't flop. If I'm rich when this comes out, this might be my new TV. This is far from a slam dunk, though. I'd love to read more about why they aren't talking about 1080p.
do we really want this crap in our environment?
http://www.hazards.org/nanotech/safety.htm
Can't you see the disease of lawyers all around you, parasitic patent squatting and litigation everywhere, and of course politicians enacting anti-innovation laws and engineering restrictions every other day?
The US has had its golden patch, and Europe is probably following it down the drain too.
The East is in ascendency, those countries where engineers are still able to make things in relative freedom. You can't lock people's minds up and then expect them to innovate.
that people mistake $400 manufacturing cost for $400 sticker price. Read the article carefully. If that's what it costs them to make it, you can be sure it'll be at least twice that in the store.
----------------- Oink. Moo. rarr! -----------------
As a part of my Systems Analyst course back in college, we had to research and promote a new technology. I based my reasearch paper on this exact same technology back in 1993, when it was first in development by a company in California. 12 years later it is finally hitting the market!
Like any hot new technology, corporations will be more than happy to charge you 3x more than they probably should. Those are the breaks if you want to stay cutting edge. Just because something is cheap to make doesn't mean it won't be excessively expensive to purchase.
"And according to a detailed cost model analysis conducted by our firm, we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400"
Manufactured cost is not what you'll pay at retail. A little Googling uncovered this heuristic for a 6:1 manufactured vs retail cost. The ratio seems optimistic for today's razor thin margins and the commodity TV business, but it still indicates much higher retail prices.
From The Entrepreneur Network:
Is Joe Sixpack an alcoholic or just really ripped? I've never figured that out...
It only took a month from the Nano Tube '05 Conference for this to hit the regular press, but Motorola announced this technology back in 2003.
Anything less than about 16 ms is not a bad response time. 16 ms displays have been around for quite a while. 16 ms is about 63 Hz (1/.016). A 12 ms display would be about 84 hertz, and an 8 ms display would be 125 hertz. Unless you were working with something that moved super fast, I doubt you could notice a difference. Even if you are gaming, its doubtful you would notice a difference between the response times as you are approaching the point where the human eye cannot recognize a difference (about 70 fps/ Hz). Most of the artifacts commonly associated with LCDs are caused from not using the synchronization provided by most graphics cards and game engines.
As others have pointed out, the panel itself may be manufactured for $400, that's not the retail price of a TV set. Add a power supply, tuner and other electronics, a nice housing, packaging, freight and tariffs, then markup for the manufacturer, and the distributer, and the retailer. . . You could easily be looking at $1200+ for the set.
Another thing that concerns me is the use of CRT-style phosphors. That means it will be subject to burn-in. Many people seem unaware of burn-in, but I expect it to become a big issue in a few years -- after the first generation of widescreen CRT and plasma sets start showing bars at either side when viewing full-screen content.
At my house we recently got a large Mitsubishi LCD panel. LCDs of course are not subject to burn-in. The wide viewing angle is impressive to me. Also, I was surprised by the default factory settings. There was no "red push" or "torch mode" or other typical kinds of programmed-in distortion to make it stand out in the showroom. I checked black level, contrast, sharpness, tint and color balance, etc. . . And I hardly changed anything from the factory settings. I just wish I had some actual HD test patterns to try on it, instead of a test DVD.
For having me investigate, and yes NETFLIX HAS MST3K series.
ALL OF THEM.
you have made my summer.
Trust me, you will not see the price reduction that you hope. Even if it only costs $10 to produce, they will still sell it at $4-6k for a 40-50" screen simply because it is better then everything else. As a result of it being better then products that cost 4-5x its cost to make, its sale price will still be the same price as competing products, maybe undercutting them 5-10%, but not much more. The last thing they want it to drop the floor value of the market, which is what would happen if they actually produced and sold their own products costs. You price a product as to what the market can withstand to maximize profits, not to maximize market share. Simple macro-economics will tell you that if people are willing to pay that much for a product, then you sell it at that price point even if your product isn't that expensive. Why should you ever want to NOT take the extra money the consumers are willing to pay.
We will not see a major drop in price of HDTV's until everyone is producing these panels. Why start a price war in a market that offers you chances to make a 500% profit? Until there are at least 2 or 3 companies with similar products, we will not see a drop in prices. As a monopoly on the technology, (which you are if you are the first and only one to market), you can set your prices to whatever you feel consumers will pay.
Take this comparison. Did the price of albums drop when CD's were introduced? Heck no. We all know that it costs pennies to make the actual medium and put the data on that medium, vs dollars for tape with the same music. But you will typically pay $5-6 more for a CD then a tape, why, because the quality is better and the market can afford the price (well one could argue this, but this is the music industry's feeling). The same will be with this TV technology. It is much cheaper to make, but since it is technologically better then the others available, it will sport a higher price.
Back to the subject of my topic, Toshiba already has been demo'ing this for several months now, it debued last September/October at all the trade shows. It is pretty much the exact same idea, just with a different element used instead of carbon nanotubes for the electron stream emmitter array. Has pretty much same exact bonuses as this technology does, thin, brighter screen, much higher contrast ration (10,000:1 is quoted and measured from working screen!), full color support, refresh times faster then CRT's, less power consumption then LCD, weight about the same as LCD's, as high a pixel count as the best LCD's. In otherwords, take the best benefits of all the current TV standard technologies (plasma, LCD, CRT) and combine then best characteristics of each into one TV without any of the particular drawbacks of the different technologies (i.e. no poor contrast ratio and pixel count of Plasma's, poor contrast ratio and refresh times of LCD's, bulky size, weight and power usage of CRT's).
What this all means is if you are planning on buying a HDTV now or the near future, you absolutely are stupid if you purchase something right now and do not wait the 2-3 months for this technology to be available. You are simply throwing $2-10k down the toilet and flushing, because this stuff truely and utterly beats everything that is currently available by a VERY noticable margin.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
$400 to manufacture. Expect the price to be at least 6 times that.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
http://i4u.com/article3233.html
http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Article.asp?date Publish=2005/04/21&pages=A8&seq=42
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Will there be anything worthwhile to watch on it?
Look at this.
Samsung has had this technology since 1999. It just hasn't been economical compared to LCDs. Samsung has been reluctant to undercut their own massive LCD panel investment, too.
More nanotube hype. Being at Rice University you'd think I'd be immune to the irritation by now.
I'm just a poor man; in need of a higher lifestyle! I am so ready for cheap monitors of any type. Flat is good; but I would settle for flat faced CRTs; in the 19" and up range.
If this tech will make 40"Flats go down to $400; what would it do for the 17" screens?
$50?!
That would be great...
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
Just have the TV Stations point a camera to the sun and everyone can have a solar panel in the livingroom to power the house with!
I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
A Field emission display. Technology Review Had an article on it back in november with some explination of the technology and the hurdles involved. The big one as it sounds that Moto can not get over is how you support the glass in the middle so it does not touch (front to back) as the display requires a vacuum to operate, fairly easy with a 5" diagonal very difficult with a 40" screen. This is surely not the first, but first for Moto.
-Me
the simpsons were ahead of their time. only they predicted the latent potential of the inanimate carbon rod.
Perhaps it will have more power than the radiation king that Homer had as a child.
Samsung has also been working on this. I saw a presentation on nanotube flat panel display development some months ago, and this past month again they made a related presentation. (in Tokyo).
Who wants to make a bet on which company takes over nanotube FPD development commercially? If you're Sony, say "Samsung".
2. Give it a name that starts with nano-
3. Jack up the selling price.
4. Profit!!!
I really don't understand why so many people spend $2000 on a 42" flat-panel TV when projectors are so cheap. For under $800 you can get a high-quality 1500 lumen 800x600 DLP projector which can give you images as big as 6 FEET or MORE. Not only can you get a HUGE screen, but projectors (especially DLP ones) are TINY compared to big flat-panel TVs, so they're easier and cheaper to ship, easier to mount, easier to move, easier to store, etc etc. DLP rocks over LCD projectors, so if you haven't seen DLP yet don't judge it prematurely. And the whining over bulb cost is just dumb. Sure they're upwards towards $400 sometimes. But they last 2000 hours. Do the math... that's $0.20/hr to watch a fricken 6-FOOT screen in your OWN HOUSE. Guess what? Tires are expensive too and wear out from time to time. But that doesn't stop people from driving (or laying patches).
And when you're NOT watching TV you don't have this big ugly thing looming on the wall. Get a pull-down (or motorized) screen and really go stealth.
Cheaper, bigger screens, easier to store/mount/move... projectors are the way to go.
Seeing vacuum tubes aka "valves" are very much in fashion for ultra high-end audio stuff, it would be cool if some manufacturer used this technology on them so as to eliminate the power consumption normally used by the filament. Did the article mention anything about expected lifetime of the emissive surface?
Well, maybe two side-by-side for life-sized pictures of little people.
I already see life-size pictures of Little People on an ordinary 17" LCD.
(explanation)
You don't need a digital TV to display a digital TV signal. You need a digital TV set top box.
And at 200 USD per TV set, who will be able to afford those come 2007 when fans can't get their Bowl Championship Series telecasts?
I trust Slashdot, but I trust scientific journals more.
The Center for Disease Control, a US Government agency, is watching the issue.
Here is some info from a study on mice. It's bibliography should be of some help if you care to research this further.
If that isn't enough, here's another paper.
The saying "the jury is still out" applies, but there's more than enough evidence to say "no" to blindly racing ahead with this technology without stopping to think about the possible consequences to human health, which was the whole point of my post that you replied to.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Specific conditions which would extend the transition period include ... fewer than 85% of the TV households in a market are able to receive digital TV signals off the air either with a digital TV set or with an analog set equipped with a converter box or by subscription to a cable-type service that carries the DTV stations in the market.
What will happen if 86 percent of households have cable or satellite TV, but the 14 percent who are poor enough not to be able to afford cable are also poor enough not to be able to afford to fit each TV with a $200 receiver?
6. Claim to have invented it and therefore have a god-given right to overcharge and underfeature it. .... profi ... hang on, look what we've invented!
7. Umm
You forgot 6.5: Enforce your alleged "god-given right" by taking other manufacturers to court for patent infringement.
One of the biggest applications I can think of are mobile and wearable computers. Currently the cpu and the LCD are the biggest price factors for these devices, bringing down the LCD would be a good move.
Not too familiar with how this happens, but...
If the thing uses phosphors, then would not the display be prone to burn-in ?
Getting these things right actually is important, as getting them wrong lowers the clarity and intelligence level of discourse considerably.
Not to be an ass, I've just seen too much of that one. Next up: "Could of..."
To reign is to serve.
How much does it cost to dispose of?
Is it easier than getting rid of a broken CRT I wonder...
A blog I run for the wealth
Duuuuude.. your post makes my head want to explode.
Please preview your future postings.
I can't wait for all the trend setters to toss their now quaint old plasma screens on the trash heap...
Oh happy days, digging in the trash in rich neighborhoods!!
God it's great to be such a cheap SOB like me!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The thing that's awesome about LCD/Plasma/OLED displays is that, since they're continuously lit, they have no flicker even in conditions with very low refresh rates and poor response times. Does this new techology refresh pixels like a CRT does, or is it continuously lit?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dear Engineering Department,
You were recently interviewed about our latest development concerning NED. Someone in your department was quoted as saying, "The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400."
Now, we here in the Sales Department know that is technically correct. It was explained to us in the last meeting.
But I was pretty sure that we (Sales) told you (Engineering) NOT TO FUCKING TELL THE WORLD THAT SHIT!!! What do you think we are in business for, to GIVE AWAY OUR FUCKING COMMISSION DOLLARS? Ahem...pardon that outburst...
As I was saying, we here at Motorola pay you Engineers (quite a bit of money) to develop neat new stuff so that the company can sell it at a healthy profit. We were actually hoping to sell the 40" HDTV flat panels at about $1800 range...you know...so we COULD MAKE A FUCKING KILLING FOR ONCE...but NOOOOOOOOOO, you have to tell the world that we can sell it at $400 (30% GP) as opposed to the 84% GP we could havdfua/ @$^&q980-9ua;sdlfkj!~~~~!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, thanks a lot. We quit.
Sincerely,
The Sales Department
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
There's an old manufacturing Rule of Thumb that says that you need to price something at about 5 times your manufacturing cost to make a "reasonable" profit (all that R&D, sales, mktg, distribution, inventory cost, taxes, etc. to pay for). So applying that here we find a $2000 end user list price. As the investment is paid off and competition heats up even that will drop. Still, if the display can live for over 20 years like my last CRT TV dd then, considering the alternatives, even that is not all that bad.
A 28-inch widescreen CRT. Nice for watching TV, acceptable for movies. Next I'll save up for a HDTV-resolution projector that I can use for movies and photo presentations.
Those 40-inch displays tend to dominate the room..
Stop the brainwash
...when it's available for my flying car.
I drank what? -- Socrates
There is an alternative technology for creating a large flatscreen TV. It uses a blue INorganic electroluminescent phosphor with filters, and I have seen 34-inch prototypes already.
The company is called iFire, and they are based in Toronto (yes, the Canadians are a player in the next-gen display industry). Their site is http://www.ifire.com./
They plan to have 37+ inch screens in retail by NLT early 2007 at pricepoints below LCD and decent plasma.
Read a preview of my novel CYBERCHILD at www.smartalix.com/cyberchild
Come 2007, they won't cost $200
It's possible that around January 2007, stores will be sold out of converter boxes, and they'll run up to well over 200 USD on eBay the way Tickle Me Elmo, Nintendo 64, Furby, and PlayStation 2 did in their time.
and keep in mind the fact that satellite, analog and digital cable won't be affected, only over the air broadcasts.
The people who can't afford a converter box for each TV are more than likely the same people who can't afford cable or satellite TV.