evernessinceI don't see the point of OLED in markets outside of gaming until issues like burn-in / pixel degradation rate, text-fringing, and QD-OLED color shift are solved.

Many mainstream customers keep their devices for 7+ years when we have tech channels demonstrating burn-in becoming distracting after 1.5 years. It will just mean more devices going into landfills. I especially don't see large business / public sector organizations switching to OLED for their IT workers. Some of these displays have a service life of 15+ years.

N3utroI dont understand how having an oled monitor is a good thing when static elements create burn in, and OS desktops themselves are made of many static elements.

ZeDestructorYes, and clearly the implication here is that Samsung has figured out how to make them robust enough for regular business/office use over the typical 3-5 year replacement cycle.

evernessinceThe article doesn't even discuss anything about improved robustness. Please read before commenting.

ZeDestructorThe word "implication" has a defined meaning. Please read a dictionary next time before commenting.

evernessincePlease highlight the part of the article where samsung claims to resolve OLED robustness.

Gotta love people on the internet doubling down by throwing a tantrum.

ZeDestructorSo apparently I have to ELI5 this...

The implication [noun, an occasion when you seem to suggest something without saying it directly] is that Samsung has achieved sufficient durability because if they had not, there would be many quite salty purchasing officers and lawyers breathing down Samsung's necks for refund or replacement if/when they wear out faster than expected. Obviously at no point in the article is that mentioned, which is why I called it an implication in the first place.

ZeDestructorYes, and clearly the implication here is that Samsung has figured out how to make them robust enough for regular business/office use over the typical 3-5 year replacement cycle.

evernessinceYou are so myopic that you don't realize that's an assumption on your part, not an implication. You are assuming that simply because they are aiming for a broader market, that they have improved durability, despite the fact that they make no mention of it. Samsung would absolutely advertise improved OLED durability if they had actually achieved it. Samsung or any company will always try to increase their marketshare but your logic seems to take that bit of common knowledge and make the huge assumption that it also means burn-in is solved. No, it means like every other company they are trying to increase profits.

In addition, we know Samsung is already exposed to risk for their existing OLED monitors. Monitors of which we know don't have sufficient durability for highly static use cases based on tests performed by RTings and HardwareUnboxed. Where are the lawyers coming after them? They aren't, as it turns out it'd be awful hard to sue someone over burn-in when it's expected wear and tear on OLED panels.

So not only do you not understand the difference between an implication and your own assumptions, you are going out insulting people's intelligence based on whatever is going on in your own head without even bothering to consider that not everyone makes the same illogical assumptions as yourself.

We are done here, no point in talking with a fool who doubles down on their own failures.

N3utroUhhh, no, that's not what the article is saying.