Is OLED TV Technology In Jeopardy?

MojoKid writes "Sony recently announced it would halt sales of its 11" OLED TV in Japan, where the panel first debuted. For now, the XEL-1 will remain on sale in the US and other markets, but Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology. In the wake of Sony's announcement, far too many pundits have rushed to declare OLED panels dead, dying, moribund, or otherwise abandoned. However, it seems more likely at this juncture that we'll see development focus shift from large panel sizes to smaller ones, particularly since the smartphone/handheld OLED market is growing briskly and larger screens are inherently more prone to defects. Sadly, this means that your chance of traipsing home with a truly cutting-edge display before 2014 or so could be pretty minimal."

Comments

Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.

Stop confusing me, Slashdot.

Re:Jeopardy

[tepples]

At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.

What's even more confusing is that it would be so plausible, especially because Sony distributes Jeopardy! and Wheel of Fortune.

Re:Jeopardy

[jd2112]

I'll take "Doomed visual display technologies" for $500, Alex.

Or maybe ...

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

LCD LED and Plasma TVs are (so) good enough for everyone, people currently don't want to spend kilobucks on technology that's not even ready from prime time (OLED TVs some nasty problems)? Be patient, gentlemen.

Re:Or maybe ...

[Kjella]

OLED got some very nice properties over LCD and plasma screens, but I think the LED backlight was the killer. For the prices we're talking here, you can have a bunch of them selectively backlighting or not backlighting the screen. There's some trickery to this true, but if you look at some of the new LCDs out like this it says "a 240-block local dimming LED backlight". At that point you're starting to fake it rather well, with a dynamic contrast in the millions rather than in the thousands.

size, not technology

[SuperBanana]

Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology

No, it was a judgment in how stupid they were to come out with an ultra-premium-price 11" TV.

I understand that the Japanese are space-conscious, but 11" is a ridiculous size, especially in the day of 1080i broadcasts.

Sony came out with the 11" because that was the largest they could reasonably manufacture, but they forgot that it doesn't matter how cool the TV is if you can't see the damn thing. This one was so small, it'd practically have to be on your nightstand to watch it in bed. Maybe on your desk? Who wants to have an 11" TV on their desk when they have a 20" LCD display, or a 15" laptop display?

If they come out with an OLED set at a price that AV enthusiasts can afford at a size at least some people can use, they'll sell.

Re:size, not technology

[hedwards]

You're point stands, but the resolution and size dictate how far away you sit. 11" is probably just about right for watching HD TV on like a bus or a train, just not for in home viewing. More of a mismarketing than anything else.

Re:size, not technology

[mobby_6kl]

Don't forget the main problem, that the 11" TV cost like $2000. It was the first commercially available OLED TV, a limited production tech demo basically. As you say, 11" is really small, that's about the size of my laptops's screen and I can't imagine many scenarios where watching it from further than say a meter away is a good idea.

OLED seems to be making good progress for in smaller devices, it was only recently that only a few Kodak cameras and and tiny MP3 players had OLED screens, but now they're many of the new phones as well. It seems that we're moving up in size, so hopefully we'll see further increases in screen dimensions. The article even mentions the upcoming 15" LG TV, and although at around two grand it's still too expensive, at least we're getting there size wise. In any case, screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors, which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20".

Re:size, not technology

[A Friendly Troll]

In any case, screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors, which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20".

You won't get those.

Unless something drastically changes, which I highly doubt, OLED monitors just won't happen. OLED is extremely susceptible to burn-in, thus unsuitable for computer displays.

Re:size, not technology

[Anonymous Coward]

So were plasma panels, and LCD though..

Technologies change and get better. Since OLED is a technology that once printable like newspaper will be cheaper than manufacturing LCD panels, even with worse reliability they will find their way first as a cheap solution (yup, even for TV's possibly), and than will improve and make their way into more expensive and reliable devices..

Re:size, not technology

[Sycraft-fu]

Depends, that may be something that can be mitigated. After all CRTs were extremely susceptible to burn in, but they seem to have dealt with it. The final generation of high end monitors seemed to be nearly totally immune. As far as I can tell they did it in part by having the display never be totally black. The guns would hit all the phosphors and perhaps that kept them decaying at a more constant rate.

However at present, Blue Phase Mode LCDs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Phase_Mode_LCD) look more promising to me.

Re:size, not technology

[jtcampbell]

Indeed. One thing people are doing now is building optical feedback into every pixel, so as the OLED material ages more current is pushed through it to keep the brightness the same.

Re:size, not technology

[theskipper]

One of the problems is that Sony's unit was based on lower IQE fluorescent OLED . Which required lots of heatsinking and precludes larger sizes than, say, 15". Phosphorescent OLED is where the true future of OLED lies and both LG and Samsung are using Universal Display's PHOLED red right now as a hybrid with fluorescent blue (green is imminent, deep blue is still a ways off). It's a matter of getting production going on gen 3.5+ lines and reducing distortion in the masking process.

One other thing, even if larger displays don't pan out, OLED lighting still has huge potential. Maybe even more than the smaller phone and pmp displays that are currently in the Zune and Samsung phones now.

Re:size, not technology

[BikeHelmet]

I doubt OLED will make it to monitors any time soon. It'd have to compete with S-IPS, which is far far cheaper.

Re:If so what instead?

[mangu]

a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dream, and they were promised what, 7 years ago now?

Don't worry, your flying car will have one on the instrument panel.

Hmmm

[DrXym]

The XEL-1 is a sub-HD, 11 inch television that cost thousands of dollars. It looks pretty ugly too being the unholy marriage of a super thin display with a hulking base unit containing the technical gubbins.

I'm not surprised if its been withdrawn. It's yesterday's news as far as early adopters might be concerned and they would be the people most inclined to buy it. Besides, the state of the art has moved on and we already know LG are delivering larger, HD capable sets this year and its likely other manufacturers would have similar plans.

Re:Hmmm

[ArwynH]

It was state of the art when it was announced, but the state of the art is always on the move. The reason XEV got pulled is that Sony has decided to spend it's money on RnD instead of fighting over razor thin margins in OLED production. Smart move considering the market conditions.

Make no mistake however, SONY is not surrendering the market, just making a tactical withdrawal. They will be back in a few years time with some new state of the art technology.

Re:And Plasma

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is saying OLED is dead anyway? Are "Online Pundits" some random guy on a message board? Because I couldn't find any talk about it on google news. Trolling for hits I guess.

So

[ShooterNeo]

Let me get this straight : I hear that OLED is the "perfect" display tech.

+ Low energy consumption since all the light from the phosphers shines through
+ ultra high refresh rates possible
+ flicker free
+ full 180 degree viewing angle
+ perfect black levels with absolutely no light emmitting from pixels that are off
+ no ghosting at all
+ cheaper to manufacture than LCDs
+ flexible
+ ultra thin

Basically, a perfect display with no drawbacks other than the fact it isn't 3d like the holodeck.

Oh, and the blue pigments fade fast, so the display dims over time and the color balance gets messed up.

Oh, and it isn't being made in large enough quantities to be affordable.

So what's the deal? Why is Sony throwing in the towel now?

Re:So

[peragrin]

um OLED's aren't cheaper to manufacture than LCD's. They will be when full production runs can get going however, the blue problem, and actually mass manufacturing them have proven to be far harder than press release like to say.

It took a good 5 years in LCD's mass manufacturing before dead pixels weren't common.

Re:So

[jtcampbell]

Active matrix OLED displays are actually really hard to manufacture compared to TFT LCDs.

A major issue comes from the fact that the TFT backplane has to supply an appreciable current to each pixel, rather than just a voltage as in LCDs. This means you can't get away with using amorphous silicon, you have to make the backplane out of Polycrystalline silicon which makes the whole production process a lot more complicated and also limits the size of panel that you can make.

Also, you generally you want to run the OLED elements in constant current mode, so you end up needing a current source circuit in each pixel. This increases the number of transistors you need per pixel from 1 or 2 in TFT to between 2 and 6 with OLED. And if any of them has a fault then you've got a dead pixel.

Re:So

[grahamlord86]

The Low power consumption isn't all that... When displaying black, they do use a lot less power than LCDs, but when displaying bright, or white colours, they can be using substantially more.
On practical displays like TVs and computers screens, this is a problem, since you've got a lot of bright colour.
On a PC, you've got mostly white for documents and websites- so all of a sudden, you can actually end up using a lot more power.

The other downer, is that OLEDs are rubbish under sunlight, even by LCD standards.

It might be that with proper RnD, these faults can be sorted out, the power consumption can be lowered to what they say it is, reflective brightness improved, etc- but it makes more sense to be on the LCD bandwagon with everyone else right now, than throw money at a technology that's probably going to be obsolete by the time it's matured...

Who said OLED is dying?

[pegasustonans]

Seriously, who said this? I'm genuinely curious. Are there any reliable sources to back this up, or is it just another sensationalist piece?

There will be no more variable resolution displays

[guidryp]

but a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dream

The variable resolution of CRT was a technological artifact, resulting from the NEED to scan across the display. We no longer have that need.

Going forward all consumer displays(in foreseeable future) will have a set, native resolution.

You get a sharper display, and you get perfect geometry. I will take that over blurry/variable geometry CRT any day.

Re:If so what instead?

[danwesnor]

I would rather have dial gauges in my flying car, because any display capable of showing advertising eventually will.

Re:There will be no more variable resolution displ

[Sycraft-fu]

CRTs also had a native rez too, it just wasn't as hard a mark. Any pro CRT, and most consumer ones, would have a recommended resolution. That wasn't for nothing. That was the rez at which is functioned best. You'd get the over all clearest image. Go too much above it, and pixels would get blurry and indistinct. Go too much below it and you'd see scanlines and such.

This is also much less of an issue with today's video cards. They can easily drive high rez displays, usually even cheap ones can handle it. The ability to knock down your resolution was something more useful when graphics memory was at a premium. That is no longer the case.

Pundits: The cancer of the media.

[Hurricane78]

1. Someone does something.
2. The pundits exaggerate it to a end-of-the-world scenario.
3. OMGWTFBBQ
4. ...
5. PROFIT (for the media)

News at 11.

Rumors of OLED's death are greatly exaggerated

[doctor_no]

This is being blown out of proportion.

The XEL-1 was discontinued in Japan because new TV sets sold this year will require a "V-chip" parental control, and a $2,000 11" TV doesn't justify a redesign to add that feature. The XEL-1 is still going to be sold in the US and Europe.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20100216_349284.html

Also, Sony is still going ahead with their 22B yen ($210M) investment in OLED
http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2008/05/22/Sony-Boasts-of-22-Billion-OLED-Investment/p1

Moreover, at the 2010 CES Sony just finished showing off a 24.5" OLED set that does 3D.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/sony-oled-3d-tv-eyes-on/

As Mark Twain said, can be applied to OLED, "rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"

Re:If so what instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done some calculations... and your UID was created approximately when those X10 ads were everywhere. Coincidence?

Re:There will be no more variable resolution displ

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The sad thing isn't the hard native resolution of LCDs; but the fact that software hasn't caught up to that yet.

It is a real issue, particularly for older users or the visually impaired, that a 21inch CRT driven at 800x600, or some similarly low resolution will look pretty much fine, while a 20inch LCD panel will look like a blocky, badly scaled, mess. This is only because resolution independence isn't really Quite There Yet for most software. Sure, you can change the DPI settings; but that will break a host of legacy crap, and have no effect whatsoever on things like certain games that draw their own entirely custom interfaces.

Once the resolution independent vector-goodness finally filters down to the point of being actually usable in real world software setups, "native resolution" will no longer matter in the slightest, except as defining the upper bound for a given monitor.

OLED sucks ... it only demos well

[gig]

OLED demos well ... you put a brand new screen in a dark room and with the right content you can blow people away. The thin displays you can make since there is no backlight demo well. The energy consumption demos well with a mostly-black screen. But when you get it home it doesn't work in a bright room, the colors aren't great and worse, change over time. The worst part may be that it's not even more energy efficient than LED-backlit displays when playing video.

On mobiles it's even less appropriate because of the varied lighting conditions you encounter. You would see people struggling with their Nexus One or Zune in daylight if they had sold more than a handful of either device.

The nerd infatuation with this expensive buzzword has been incredible. Some were calling for an OLED iPad, that is crazy. It would cost more than the whole device and have so many drawbacks in practical use. All for a buzzword.

Re:It's a Sony product huh?

[LordVader717]

For fucks sake they invested and first developed and sold the technology. Credit where credit is due.
Just because you have a personal grudge against the company doesn't mean you have to bash everything they do. New technology is expensive.