'OLED TVs Will Finally Take Off in 2017' (engadget.com)

From a feature article on Engadget: After years of taunting consumers with incredible picture quality, but insanely high prices, OLED TVs are finally coming down to Earth. Prices are falling, there will be even more models to choose from and, at least based on what we've seen from CES this year, LCD TVs aren't getting many upgrades. If you've been holding out on a 4K TV upgrade, but haven't had the budget to consider OLED up until now, expect things to change this year. Even before CES began, it was clear the OLED market was beginning to change. Throughout 2016, LG steadily lowered the prices of its lineup -- its cheapest model, the B6, launched at $4,000, but eventually made its way down to $2,000 by October. Come Black Friday, LG also offered another $200 discount to sweeten the pot. A 55-inch 4K OLED for $1,800! It was such a compelling deal I ended up buying one myself. Since then, the B6's price has jumped back up to $2,500, but I wouldn't be surprised to see its price come back down again. So why the big discounts? LG reportedly increased the production of its large OLED panels by 70 percent last year, likely in anticipation of more demand. That could have led to a slight oversupply, which retailers wanted to clear out before this year's sets.

Comments

Who cares?

[DogDude]

I mean this literally... other than TV salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new TV, I go to the TV store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was OLED, LED, or FairyDust powered. A TV is a TV is a TV.

Re:Who cares?

[houstonbofh]

Just because you do not know them does not mean there are no differences... http://gizmodo.com/why-is-oled...
Why's it so great?
The LEDs in today's LED televisions are actually used only to provide a white back light, which then shines through a rapidly-refreshing LCD shutter array which tints the emanating light. OLEDs, on the other hand, operate as both light source and color array simultaneously. This may not sound like a big difference, but does offer a wide range of benefits including:
Lower power consumption
Better picture quality
Better durability and lighter weight

So the fact that cool previously expensive features are getting cheaper is news...

Re:Who cares?

[AK Marc]

And flash is bad for storage, as it fails after 100 writes.

You need to update your bias. The technology has improved long past your prejudice. OLED no longer has any lag disadvantage, though there is a shortage of low-lag OLED, as they prices haven't dropped enough for that application. But a 55" OLED TV has lag average for 55" LED TVs.

Re:Who cares?

[grasshoppa]

I think many of us are kinda burned out from the TV industry selling "the next big thing" over and over again, when it's obvious they're only doing it in the hopes of getting fools ( read: consumers ) on a 2-5 year tv rotation.

It's always the same, "This is going to be huge! It's a revolution in TV quality" only to die off to little fanfare a few years later because it was an incremental upgrade at best, and not worth the extra cash for the vast majority of folks out there.

It'd help if the industry revamped it's marketing game and targeted only those who are purchasing TVs instead of attempting to manipulate everyone into upgrading.

Re:Who cares?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

What happened? I have a 3D TV in my living room. 65". Works great and I love it. Does the feature matter to everyone? Of course not. I'm glad to have it.

Re:Who cares?

[thegarbz]

A TV is a TV is a TV.

What are you doing on a news for nerds site? A TV is a TV is a TV within the bounds of each technology. When a display technology comes through an revolutionises colour and contrast reproduction people care.

I won't buy another TV till my current one dies, but I care to see progress rather than the world settling for the "it's just an idiot box" attitude. Interestingly you cared enough about it to post. Thanks for showing an interest in the story.

Re: Who cares?

[Luthair]

This isn't really an OLED problem to my knowledge, rather an issue that most high end TVs have a long image processing pipeline.

Re:Who cares?

[by (1706743)]

Not to mention obscene contrast ratios (which is implied by your post, I guess) -- some claim 1,000,000:1, others seem to claim infinite.

I have an LCD (backlit) TV and a OLED phone -- in a dark room, displaying a black image on the TV will cause a noticeable amount of bleedthrough light. A black image on my OLED phone, on the other hand, can only be described by Nigel Tufnel.

Re:Who cares?

[harperska]

Not trying to be judgmental, just curious as your opinion seems to be in the minority. What sort of 3D content do you regularly view on your TV that you feel is enhanced by being in 3D?

Re:Who cares?

[dontbemad]

You're kidding right? OLED is an incremental upgrade? It is fundamentally different from how modern LCD based TVs work altogether. It is a larger change from the Plasma -> LCD switch that happened years ago. If you don't understand the technology change here, that's fine, but don't downplay the importance of this change.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who cares about the quality of the TV image should care because the differences between OLED and LCD are significant when it comes to dark images. Unlike an LCD TV, an OLED TV has no backlight. The individual OLED pixels produce the light you see. The significance of this is that when a section of the image is black, it's truly black, as- in absence of light black. An LCD TV on the other hand uses a fluorescent or LED light source behind the liquid crystal display. When a section of the image is black, you can still see the back light. It causes what is known as "back light bleed" where you see a non-uniform splotchy black or grayness in the dark areas of the screen.

Re:Who cares?

[AK Marc]

I mean this literally... other than CAR salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new CAR, I go to the CAR store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was SUV, SEDAN, or EIGHTEEN-WHEELER powered. A CAR is a CAR is a CAR.

I mean this literally... other than CAR salespeople, who cares? Every decade or two, when it's time to get a new CAR, I go to the CAR store, and I buy something that they have in stock, within my budget. I couldn't care if it was GASOLINE, DIESEL, or HYBRID powered. A CAR is a CAR is a CAR.

Yup, you summed it up perfectly, you just used deliberately broken analogy. People shopping for a TV care about price and size. Refresh rate, internal upscalers, and other features are not interesting to 90%+ of the population. Resolution and a few other features are "known" by the ignorant shopping public, so they'll be heavily advertised in some areas. But in most cases, a person will walk out of a store with the cheapest TV of the size they selected.

His point isn't that *YOU* shouldn't care, but that he, like most people, doesn't care. If someone can get a Plasma TV to out perform an OLED TV, why should he care about they type of display? The result should matter, not the details.

This is true of everything. Even those into something will get to some level of detail where it won't matter anymore. "Oh, I can't buy that car, the bore of the engine should be larger than the stroke, that's how all F1 cars are, so it's obviously superior, and any car that is undersquare is inferior." Instead, "That car makes 900 hp and gets 100 MPG? What do I care whether it's 4 2-cyl 2-stroke engines, one on each wheel, or a V12 Diesel hybrid?" is more likely the response.

How it gets the results is less relevant than the results, as observed by a non-expert consumer.

Re:Who cares?

[dontbemad]

he, like most people, doesn't care.

As someone who worked extensively in a customer facing role for a consumer electronics retailer, I think you might be a little confused with what the term "most people" means.

Believe whatever you want. It is wholly like slashdotters to ridicule mainstream consumer electronics, popularly held opinions, and products that hold form over function. The target audience of this site is anything but the "average consumer". So when the lot of you hivemind and mistakenly believe that "since others around me in a controlled environment believe the same thing I do, i must be right", you move ever further and further away from reality into your own bubble.

Re:Who cares?

[golgotha007]

>>A TV is a TV is a TV.

It's clear that you don't know what OLED is. I just bought an LG OLED 65 inch two weeks ago and it's the most amazing thing I've ever seen. The colors are incredibly bright. The contrast ratio is infinity because black means that the pixel is actually turned off. If the whole screen goes black for a moment while watching a movie, it's like the TV is turned off. Watching space movies at night with all the lights off is a jaw dropping experience. I just watched Prometheus again in 3D at night with all the lights off. It's a whole new experience. This is hands down the best TV I've ever seen or had.

Granted there's not much 4k content, but you can get quite a bit currently on Netflix. I'm currently re-watching all of Breaking Bad at 4k, 7.1 surround. I hightly recommend the OLED experience.

OK

[backslashdot]

I will install it in my fusion energy powered level 5 autonomous flying car so I can watch a movie on my way to the Spaceport.

Re:It isn't a good deal

[Junta]

It's a good deal because the customer will have to buy another one after 3 or 4 years due to burn in or the blue wearing out. It's a great deal for the vendor.

(Continues to lament that we can't have both true black and a display technology that won't burn in or wear out quickly).

I want QLED

[HalAtWork]

QLED for me. More power efficient, longer lasting color vibrance (won't yellow or fade), cheaper.

Re:I want QLED

[grimr]

There are two types of quantum dot TV technologies. That wikipedia article talks about both of them but makes it sound like they're talking about the current "so-called Quantum Dot TVs" for the whole article if you skipped over the explanation in the second paragraph at the to of the article.

In the History section they talk about the current TVs which as you also said are just an LCD display with quantum dots in place of the colour filters.

But in the Working principle section onward they talk about Quantum Dot LEDs. These, as they mention, work on the OLED design where each sub pixel emits light directly. These TVs are not out yet.

The GP I believe was talking about Quantum Dot LEDs. These are indeed more power efficient, won't colour fade and cheaper. They also offer higher brightness than LCD (no backlight) and the high contrast ratio that Plasma and OLED are famous for. They also have a faster response time than LCD as they emit light directly instead of having to wait for liquid crystals to realign.

All the current quantum dot LCD TVs offer is better colour gamut which most consumers won't care about.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Neh, TVs are dying

[TechyImmigrant]

Laptop in my household. 4 chairs, 4 people, 4 laptops. At least we are in the same room.

Re:Still a bit much

[vux984]

I actually bought a new TV the day before yesterday. My previous one was 6-7 years old. I looked at OLED, I ogled the black levels, and then I bought a 4K LED backlit LCD with full dimming* that was 15" larger for quite a bit less.

* yeah still not nearly as good as OLED, but very good blacks for LED LCD.

The new screen looks great. The technology is proven. It would have cost me a LOT more to get an OLED TV at the same size.

Burn in... Improvements?

[foxalopex]

LCD panels are already very cheap to produce and are virtually as thin as OLED panels. In fact OLED panels are so similar to LCDs that some manufacturers have come up with the stupid idea of curving them so that they're easier to market to consumers because we can barely tell the difference. (Completely distorts the image)

My major concern with OLED is burn-in which apparently is possible in OLEDs, I haven't seen that in my Samsung phone but it's still a concern compared to LCDs. If I'm going to pay several grand for a TV it better be almost bulletproof. And 4K TV's are just silly, it's very hard to find 1080p content (most commercial TV is only 1080i at best) nevermind 4K.

Re:Burn in... Improvements?

[squiggleslash]

Nope, what you've spouted is unmitigated bullshit.

HDTV channels stick to a single resolution. They don't flip between 720p and 1080i when they switch between sports and drama - there's too much that can go wrong if they do, so they generally stick to 720p or 1080i. For the latter, pulldown is used to encode dramatic material.

Pulldown is an encoding method, saying it's a thing of the past because modern TVs are using a very high refresh method shows complete ignorance of what pulldown is. Pulldown is a way to encode a p24 (480p24, 720p24, 1080p24, etc) video in an i60 (480i60, 720i60, 1080i60) video stream. That's it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the framerate of your output device. Your output device can ignore it, or use it to reconstruct the original 1080p24 material, for output as whole frames.

Indeed, the problem with higher framerate devices is when the content isn't using pulldown, as trying to display interlaced content on a non-interlaced device - gets ugly unless you're willing to do a lot of post processing.

Re:It isn't a good deal

[grasshoppa]

Two whole years?

Golly.

Plasma replacement

[dhaen]

I've enjoyed a plasma TV for about 10 years and have been particularly unimpressed by the LCDs that superseded it. This year in Japan I saw the new generation of affordable OLEDs and realised that this is the technology that most likely will satisfy me. The colour is pretty close to correct (no I can't afford a Dolby monitor for home, though I have them at work). Without a reference white light (as used in my industry for accuracy), my eyes will adapt sufficiently to accept the small inaccuracies for home.

BTW for those with the "more resolution is better" obsession, I suggest you consider the frame-rate issue, in terms of quality perception. There have been many studies that suggest that extra bandwidth is better utilised in increasing frame-rate than absolute resolution.

Re:But we got a TV in 2015

[houstonbofh]

So, better picture quality, lighter weight and much less power consumption is not enticing? OK, perhaps not at $4000... But once it gets under a grand...

Re:Burn in?

[The Grim Reefer]

That's a link to a discussion board. Current OLED is still much more susceptible to burn in than LCD. Samsung has recently announced 10 yr warranties against burn in, on it's LCD panels, as a shot at LG's OLED TV. I'm sure it's better than the original Plasma's, but it's still an issue. Also, the blue tends to dim faster on OLED. As far as I know, that has also not been addressed.

New features like malware

[Actually, I do RTFA]

This is an LG TV. Didn't we just get told all LG devices are "smart"? Ransomwear is already a thing on "smart" TVs. Why aren't the display and the driver separated out and connected by a dumb cord?