Saturday, January 7th 2012

Sony Quits Consumer OLED Display Business - For Now Only?

There has been excitement recently, that the much-anticipated next generation OLED display technology for consumer TVs and computer monitors will finally make an entrance in the market in 2012. Fuelling this, was the announcement last week that LG is to showcase their OLED TV at CES this month. Sony was also due to introduce OLED TVs to consumers. However, this plan has now been shelved, according to The Daily Yomiuri, with Sony only continuing to sell this technology to corporate customers such as broadcasting companies, along with the associated research and development into better displays. The reason for dropping the consumer market is partly due to poor business performance in this area, so Sony cut back on capital investment, which in turn reduced its price competitiveness with its Korean rivals such as LG and Samsung.

This is a shame, because for a healthy and good value OLED TV and monitor market, there need to be many players competing with each other, which will drive down prices and increase product quality over time. However, if OLED takes off in the consumer space, it seems very unlikely that Sony wouldn't return to it eventually.
Sony XEL-1 OLED TV.Picture credit: engadget
Add your own comment

27 Comments on Sony Quits Consumer OLED Display Business - For Now Only?

#1
LAN_deRf_HA
Has progress been made on blue pixel life and burn in issues? Wonder if those are the big hold up.
Posted on Reply
#2
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: LAN_deRf_HA
Has progress been made on blue pixel life and burn in issues? Wonder if those are the big hold up.
I would hazard a guess that some progress has been made, but it's still perhaps not good enough for general consumer use. Still, the problems can't be too bad if corporates can buy them as they are.

I don't understand why regular LED technology can't be used to make displays - they have all the colours, red, green and blue, are bright and they last forever. Why is the 'organic' type necessary?
Posted on Reply
#3
LAN_deRf_HA
You mean QLEDs? I think their problem is also longevity, 10,000 hours.
Posted on Reply
#4
Mussels
Moderprator
by: qubit

I don't understand why regular LED technology can't be used to make displays - they have all the colours, red, green and blue, are bright and they last forever. Why is the 'organic' type necessary?
faster refresh, more colors visible, better viewing angles.
Posted on Reply
#5
erocker
I hope some companies start pushing them out this year. I'm not upgrading my monitor until I can get something at a higher resolution and other superior specs. I've been waiting for OLED for qiute some time. I hope it happens soon.
Posted on Reply
#6
Mussels
Moderprator
by: erocker
I hope some companies start pushing them out this year. I'm not upgrading my monitor until I can get something at a higher resolution and other superior specs. I've been waiting for OLED for qiute some time. I hope it happens soon.
i cant decide if i want to go higher res or not, simply because i cant even run all games maxed out now with my setup.


if i have to upgrade even higher for 2560x1440, is it really worth it as a gamer?
Posted on Reply
#7
mediasorcerer
i had an imac 27 a while ago with 2560x1440 and f me it does look very good with games, too bad the guts of it were not all that powerful in the gpu dept.
Posted on Reply
#8
BumbleBee
Sony's insurance division makes more money than any other.
Posted on Reply
#9
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Mussels
if i have to upgrade even higher for 2560x1440, is it really worth it as a gamer?
I don't think there's a black and white answer to this one. I reckon it depends on what kind of game you play. Let's say slow moving flight sims, then visual detail will be very important and you won't want to see any jaggies. However, if you're an fps gamer, then the fast, twitchy action won't really let you see that much detail anyway. Sure, visual quality is important, but not in the same way as for the flight sim. The choice of IPS or TN tech would matter with the different types of game, too.
Posted on Reply
#10
radrok
by: Mussels
i cant decide if i want to go higher res or not, simply because i cant even run all games maxed out now with my setup.


if i have to upgrade even higher for 2560x1440, is it really worth it as a gamer?
If you play online FPS games be ready to keep your smaller screen to play them, you can't see any ghosting on a 30" (good panels, Dell or HP, Samsung 30" has some ghosting issues) but I feel more comfortable playing them on a smaller screen, might be me but I see the difference there.
On the other hand single player games and online ones which aren't FPS are WONDERFUL, I honestly cannot go back to a lower resolution than 1600p play them, Skyrim literally stunned me although you know that you need the horsepower to drive the higher pixel count.
If I'd tell you at which res I played Dirt3 you'd yell at me :p
In the end if you are going to pick a bigger screen, with bigger I intend higher resolution too, just keep your smaller screen to play online FPS games, this is my personal experience advice.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
by: qubit
I would hazard a guess that some progress has been made, but it's still perhaps not good enough for general consumer use. Still, the problems can't be too bad if corporates can buy them as they are.

I don't understand why regular LED technology can't be used to make displays - they have all the colours, red, green and blue, are bright and they last forever. Why is the 'organic' type necessary?
I think the main problem with actual LED screens (not LED backlighted) is the physical size of each LED subpixel. You need to put together 4 LED's to create 3 basic colors. White and RGB LED. And that might still be a problem. Or a price even if they can make it. That's why only LED screens are those billboard sized ones or in studios.
Posted on Reply
#12
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: qubit
...sell this technology to corporate customers such as broadcasting companies, along with the associated research and development into better displays.
That tells me it is ridiculously expensive and they don't see the price coming down any time soon.
Posted on Reply
#13
radrok
The issue is that there is no demand for different panels, people are happy with 1080p and couldn't care less about better colors or faster panels, of course I am not including many of the users of this kind of forums :)
Posted on Reply
#14
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: radrok
The issue is that there is no demand for different panels, people are happy with 1080p and couldn't care less about better colors or faster panels, of course I am not including many of the users of this kind of forums :)
Yes, in other words the great unwashed are very undiscerning and ignorant and accept any old crap as perfectly good. Witness the multitude of cheap and nasty audio systems blaring out of people's houses. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#15
Prima.Vera
Sony is going down big time. i read somewhere that they sell some display/monitor fabs to the rival Samsung...
bye bye Sony..
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
by: qubit
Yes, in other words the great unwashed are very undiscerning and ignorant and accept any old crap as perfectly good. Witness the multitude of cheap and nasty audio systems blaring out of people's houses Cars. :rolleyes:
fixed :P
Posted on Reply
#17
radrok
What most of them do not understand is that audio reproduction must be accurate, not loud :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#18
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Mussels
fixed :P
Yeah, both really lol. The flat above mine is rented and the different tenants sometime like to turn up their "hi-fi" real loud occasionally and the sound is universally shit - confirmed when I knock on their door to turn this crap down. It's not just transmission through the ceiling that makes it sound like that.
Posted on Reply
#19
radrok
Do you imagine where Monitor/TVs technology would have been if it was following our kind of demand?
Damn I should stop dreamin' like that :D
Posted on Reply
#20
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: radrok
Do you imagine where Monitor/TVs technology would have been if it was following our kind of demand?
Damn I should stop dreamin' like that :D
Yes, I often lament this myself. sad

We'd probably have 16:10 displays (the optimum aspect ratio) 3840 x 1200 minimum resolution, none of this LCD crap with motion smear and poor viewing angles - perhaps advanced plasma? - 120Hz+ displays as standard, perhaps 240Hz, perfect true 3D displays with a perfect image that don't need glasses and don't give you a migraine with it and more that I can't even think about.

And of course, all this super high tech would be very keenly priced, too. But we don't have any of this, because the great f* ignorant unwashed are happy with whatever crap they're given. :slap:

Oh yeah, how it could have been...
Posted on Reply
#21
AsRock
TPU addict
WOW, and i was out shopping yesterday and liked the SONY over any other. Although part of the reason is that near everyone has glossy boarders which i hate.
Posted on Reply
#22
dieterd
by: qubit
120Hz displays as standard, perhaps 240Hz
yea - human eye can "catch" about 24 frames per second. your 240hz is like ultrasound in home or car speakers - it would cost a fortune, but only bats could hear a difference :slap:
Posted on Reply
#23
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: dieterd
yea - human eye can "catch" about 24 frames per second. your 240hz is like ultrasound in home or car speakers - it would cost a fortune, but only bats could hear a difference :slap:
No, you're wrong.
Posted on Reply
#24
radrok
Human eye does not percieve FPS how many times does this have to be debated?

I would challenge you to play Quake at 24 FPS :)
It's the combination of many factors, the main reason that you don't see stuttering in Films is that they use a lot of motion blur so your eyes do not percieve stuttery images.
Also excuse me the edit but you clearly have never played with a high refresh monitor with a source pushing 120 frames per second to make that statement.
Posted on Reply
#25
Mussels
Moderprator
by: dieterd
yea - human eye can "catch" about 24 frames per second. your 240hz is like ultrasound in home or car speakers - it would cost a fortune, but only bats could hear a difference :slap:
24 is the minimum for still images to be perceived as fluid. its certainly nowhere near the maximum.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment