Slashdot Mirror


Samsung's 'Unbreakable' OLED Display Gets Certified (theverge.com)

Samsung Display, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, just introduced a flexible OLED panel that has a transparent plastic cover already attached, emulating the properties of glass but retaining the screen's innate flexibility. The screen is so durability that it's been certified by UL (formerly known as Underwriters Laboratories). The Verge reports: Samsung, describing the new panel as unbreakable, reports that it has withstood UL's military-standards tests of 26 successive drops from a height of 1.2 meters (close to 4 feet) as well as extreme temperatures as high as 71 degrees Celsius (159.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and as low as -32 degrees Celsius (-25.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The OLED display "continued to function normally with no damage to its front, sides, or edges," we're told, and Samsung even went further by performing a successful drop test from 1.8 meters (6 feet).

39 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. The screen is so durability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Queen called. She wants her language back.

    1. Re: The screen is so durability by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      A circle is a sequence of straight lines. At least for my CNC it is.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  2. Is this considered... by raftpeople · · Score: 1

    breaking news?

    1. Re:Is this considered... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      It tried...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    2. Re: Is this considered... by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      Samsung screens are great. They make the best screens.

      But gawd no their phones.... stupid exploding phones....

      Get a Nexus...

      Funnily, the only Nexus phones that I love is the Galaxy Nexus, by Samsung
      Anyway, perhaps you mean "Get a Pixel"?

  3. Have they also invented an OLED screen... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .... whose display quality doesn't become lousy after 6-12 months of usage? (Check out the pictures between the phone that had been used regularly and the one that had almost never been used)

    I've seen this over and over and over again. I'm never buying any sort of OLED phone until either they can get degradation under control, or they've literally driven LCD phones off the market.

    --
    "Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
    1. Re:Have they also invented an OLED screen... by Megol · · Score: 1

      If you use your phone 16/7 then OLED is probably a bad choice, not because the screen become very degraded but due to the uneven degradation mentioned in that article. Most people don't use their screens at maximum brightness and have the screen off most of the day and then OLED is a reasonable choice.

    2. Re:Have they also invented an OLED screen... by locopuyo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      OLED looks a million times better than LCD, even after 3 years of use.

    3. Re:Have they also invented an OLED screen... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      As anecdotal evidence, I have a Galaxy Tab S 10.5 (released 2014) that I've used extensively for 2.5 years. it substitutes as my TV (Plex, DirecTV Now) when I'm away from my TV, so stays on for long periods of time. I'd estimate 4-8 hours a day (I often leave it on in the background while I'm working on the computer).

      I recently bought an Amazon Fire HD 10, and was immediately disappointed by the image quality. It looks like crap compared to the OLED screen, especially when displaying dark scenes. I was going to exchange it for a different tablet, when I learned that the Fire HD 10 has one of the better screens available on LCD tablets, and the best one on an Amazon device.

      And no I'm not talking about color saturation. By 2014 Samsung had included a movie mode which targeted sRGB, and I generally leave the tablet in that mode all the time. So no super-saturated colors. It's all about the blacks and contrast. LCDs just can't come anywhere near OLED. I'm now waiting for the Tab S4 to be released so I can have a newer non-4:3 tablet with an OLED screen.

    4. Re:Have they also invented an OLED screen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe, if I could see the image on the screen past all of the burnt in TV station logos, the sunlight, the (unevenly) faded colours and the screen constantly fidgeting around to try to prevent burn in.

      I think I'll stick with my LCDs as they last practically forever and if the backlight ever does wear out, I can easily replace it.

  4. Scratch resistance? by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they didn't put any cover at all on it, it should also have the same unbreakable properties. Or if the screen cover were just cellophane or plexiglass. Glass is used in large part because it is scratch resistant, chemical resistant, and it can be thin for less optical distortion. I've heard nothing about it's other relevant properties.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Scratch resistance? by oic0 · · Score: 2

      My first thought was... Im going to put a tempered glass screen protector on it lol.

  5. Real world tests by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    [...] the new panel [...] withstood UL's military-standards tests of 26 successive drops from a height of 1.2 meters[and] continued to function normally with no damage to its front, sides, or edges.

    Let's see how well it survives such drops once it's attached to a non-flexible and heavier phone.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Real world tests by Megol · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it. A beetle (the insect) thrown from a tall building survives, a beetle glued to a rock will not.

    2. Re:Real world tests by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      What do you mean? African or European beetle?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Real world tests by DanDD · · Score: 1

      If only I had a mod point for you sir! Well done, well done.

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    4. Re:Real world tests by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Let's see if it survives a month in my daughter's hands. (Or, actually, slipping out of them.)

  6. Real world tests+ by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Let's see how well it survives such drops once it's attached to a non-flexible and heavier phone

    Let's see how well it survives a battery explosion.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  7. Youtube sales by RyanFenton · · Score: 2

    Market experts expect that 60% of sales will come from video makers on youtube, responding to claims of unbreakability.

    Ryan Fenton

  8. Re:Nothing compared to my wife by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Yeah, maybe you should be nicer to her.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  9. Why such a short drop test if unbreakable? by llZENll · · Score: 1

    Drop it so it reaches terminal velocity onto a diamond surface (it's hard). Hit it with a sledgehammer. Run over it with a really big thing. I love how they use the term unbreakable in quotes. It's like using the phrase "almost definitely"...

    1. Re:Why such a short drop test if unbreakable? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      "All you can eat".
      "Unlimited" bandwidth.
      "Unbreakable" displays.
      Freakin' sharks with "lasers".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  10. Hopefully by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Hopefully this “unbreakable” thing will turn out better for them than it did for Oracle.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  11. military spec is only down to -32C? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

    > Celsius (159.8 degrees Fahrenheit) and as low as -32 degrees pfft... -32C is a cold day in Montreal, but not unheard of at all... Last winter the pleather case for my raybans shatterred when I got my sunglasses out of it in the morning. seems like *military specs* doesn't include the arctic (and Montreal is south of Seattle, not even close to arctic.) I would worry about such a display if it we ever left overnight in the car.

    1. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      I'm just curious, was your pleather case military spec'd?

    2. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      It's very rare when it's -32C or below in Montreal. Last winter, the coldest temperature was on January 14 with -27C.

      Since 1941, there was a total of 8 days with -32C or below (Dorval airport) :

      Jan 15, 1957 with -37.8
      Jan 4, 1981 with -35.2
      Feb 15, 1943 with -33.9
      Jan 3, 1981 with -33.5
      Feb 16, 1943 with -33.3
      Dec 25, 1980 with -32.4
      Dec 20, 1942 with -32.2
      Feb 10, 1951 with -32.2

    3. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      Military grade temperature range is -55 / +125 C (junction temperature). Of course, there can be adaptations to other temperature ranges... Here, they probably used the standardized military test methods, but with a more limited temperature range.

    4. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1
      My car was reporting "is a cold day, but not unheard of" ... try Edmonton (january 2018 extreme was -34.6, February minimum was -40.1 ( http://climate.weather.gc.ca/c... ) or Whitehorse, or Longyearbyen, or Murmansk, or Tuktoyaktuk, or... there are a lot places people live that are colder than Montreal is the point. -32C is not a minimum temp that makes much sense for people living near the poles or even in northerly cities or at some altitudes.

      Another poster mentioned mil-spec as -55 which makes more sense. So they didn't test true mil spec, but mil-spec with a reduced temperature range... Makes more sense.

    5. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

      that makes more sense. -32C doesn't make sense as a minimum for Military needs.

    6. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I don't expect to be fighting a war in Montreal any time soon. I think the military is OK.

    7. Re:military spec is only down to -32C? by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1
  12. You have never heard of a nail? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    For someone with such a hammer fetish, I'm surprised you've never heard of a nail. Hammers only break nails when they are thumbnails.

    Take a hammer and a hacksaw to my wedding ring and you'll just ruin your hacksaw and put a dent in the table.

  13. Weight by mirthful1 · · Score: 1

    Did the detailed article list the weight of the screen? Curious how it might compare to existing parts. Seems to me to be a bit bulkier/heavier.

  14. Re:You need a hammer for breaking this OLED displa by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    You don't even need the bullet from a firearm or gun, you can use those things as hammers too!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  15. About as unbreakable by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    ... as my internet is unlimited.

  16. Scratchable by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"The screen is so durability [sic] that it's been certified by UL"

    "Durability" means many things. A plastic screen can give and bend. So yes, it might be generally, "unbreakable". But plastic is much, much, much softer than glass. So instead of a broken screen, you end up with a scratched-up-to-hell screen. So that doesn't mean it is more "durable" than high-tech glass.

    "Which is better?" (AKA "Pick your poison") Might be the appropriate question.

  17. Survived 26 drops, huh? by mark-t · · Score: 2

    So does that mean it broke on the 27th drop?

  18. That's expensive by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    So what? You're not supposed to drop your $1000 phone from 1.2 meters to begin with.

  19. Best way to test it by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Would be to give it to a bunch of 6 year olds. If they can't break it, it can't be broken LOL.