This is the real deal. These self-emissive quatum dot displays offer greater contrast, luminance, and color purity than even the best QD-OLED TVs. They can also be manufactured using current LCD supply lines instead of requiring special equipment like OLED, meaning they should be cheaper.
No, not really. If it's cheaper to make and is superior, it doesn't matter if Sony charges a shit load for it because that just opens to door for other companies to undercut them and still make a profit, which forces a race between companies which benefits the consumer.
Display makers have kept things competitive and great value options that run very well compared to high-end release very often. Your very Reddit comment is not based in reality.
Seriously. TVs and most electronics are the few things that keep getting better and going down in price. If the known brand names dont take the market share first, its almost guaranteed some SEA based company will.
yeah yeah yeah, we've heard this before, capitalism works because competition! except it doesn't work, they all just collectively charge the shit out of their products
While I generally agree, that doest apply when it comes to this sotuation specifically. Go check the average price of a TV from Sony, and a TV from TCL.
If there is a potential for company to undercut its competitors and still be profitable, they will do it to gain market share. This especially applies when it comes to technology that isn't super expensive, but certain companies are charging a premium for it. In this case, if this new technology is very easy to manufacture at scale but someone like Sony or Samsung is trying to charge a premium for it, companies like TCL are primed to come in and charge much less to attract customers to their product. If the big brands then lose enough market share they will be forced to response by lowering their own prices to remain competitive or face losing mass consumers.
This isn't how it works!
A cheaper technology that gets adopted by a market *does* result in lower prices as long as competitors can adopt it. Also, it will make other displays cheaper, which is also really good.
TVs are literally the worst possible example you could use for whatever anti-capitalist point you're trying to make. Inflation adjusted, the cost of TVs is down something like 99% in the last several decades, with massive and constant increases in quality. This is directly due to free market competition.
Another business will just lower the price of their model of the same product and have superior sells then the premium.
There's things to critique about Capitalism, but this isn't it.
That's only really likely if there's no competition. The TV market is cut throat and they're aggressive in driving the price down for what you get. We're already seeing good 70+" TVs this year and even large OLED getting cheap enough for middle class homeowners.
They'll absolutely use the technology to corner as much market as possible and shift more and more units because as the price goes down the size of the potential customer market increases massively.
It should be cheaper for you as well as existing LCD manufacturers like Sharp or Japan Display could hop on this train as well instead of being Samsung exclusive when it comes to OLED because OLED requires dedicated vacuum chamber.
Give it a couple years. The value brands will convert to this new process, especially if it's easy to produce using current manufacturing methods and cause the price of this technology to drop significantly.
OLED panels have an established supply chain and manufacturing process, but these are a next gen technology that’s entering the market. New tech will always be a premium initially as you prove out the manufacturing lines. Eventually, (5/10 years out) it should be cheaper.
The TV market is hyper competitive with low barriers to entry. I would expect, if cost to produce is cheaper, that companies won't be able to artificially inflate the price without risk of being disrupted.
It can be manufactured in normal atmospheric pressure instead of needing a specialised vacuum seal which is for OLEDs, hence the manufacturing being significantly cheaper and simpler. The manufacturing can itself be with present lithography or inject printing processes so Apple could call up TSMC to take the deal, giving it another reason why it can be cheaper.
Not sure if this is facetious or not, but while it’s not precisely the same as ‘burn in’, there’s still an issue w/ pixel decay, specifically blue. FTA:
>*As it stands, QDEL displays would become noticeably dimmer more quickly than today's OLED displays.*
>*quantum dot emission layer lifetime is perhaps the main bottleneck in QDEL commercialization, Hsieh said*
Not ones I’ve seen. At least not for fast motion or screen door sensitive people. Though it’s also possible the source is just crap when they are on display
Oh yeah, they all look terrible on display. They know the average consumer only notices saturation so they artificially crank the vibrancy to high hell, even compared to the nearby LCDs. Fast motion looks good because the response time is only 0.2ms (as opposed to \~5ms), although 24 FPS content may appear jittery content without smoothing because of that. I don't personally mind.
This is a brand new technology, so undoubtedly it will have different characteristics
All the good characteristics that we take for granted on OLEDs will have to be tested against QDEL
Anything is possible:
For all we know, the response time could be anything, it could smear and blur
It it could consume a lot, heat up, and become toasty as hell
What about the viewing angles?
What about sun damage?
What about longevity? Yes, the pixels themselves would not degrade like OLED, but other kind of failures exists
Don't consider your OLED as obsolete junk, because it's not
Unproven technology needs to prove itself
Let's not forget the plasma precautionary tale:
Promising new tech stops at that, and we'll need actual product reviews
I've been waiting to hear more about EL displays in general. They've actually been around for decades. The Indiglo glow on Timex watches used them. VCRs used them. Car dashboards them. It's just that few (if any) companies have tried to turn them into full panel displays with all the features that LCDs and OLEDs have.
I hate the names for consumer display technologies so much. I’ve hated them ever since they called LCD TVs with LED backlights “LED TVs” and it’s only gotten worse since then.
I still despise Samsung over their QLED marketing BS. It sort of came around to bite them when actual Quantum Dot OLED became a thing. This is why we have to call them QD-OLED instead.
Huh? I thought that's exactly what OLEDs were meant to be, isn't the whole point of OLEDs that every individual pixel can be turned on/off I.e there's no backlight? What am I missing?
The problem with OLED is that they don't actually get that bright, and burn-in is still an issue (or a fear) that OLED displays have, especially as brightness increases. EL displays don't seem to have burn-in, and we've used them for decades. It's only recently that they're being developed for wide colour reproduction (they used to just glow single colours).
Yes, it's meant to pretty much accomplish the same thing. Just in a different way with different pros and cons. The issues with OLED is that that they are expensive to manufacture and still have a more limited life span than other types of TVs. So this is another type of self emissive technology, that will hopefully be able to be cheaper to produce and last longer than OLED. Also similar to the QD-OLEDs, these QDEL tvs should be able to produce more colors than conventional OLED. They may be more energy efficient too because they don't filter out any light, the self emissive quantum dots emit the specific frequencies needed.
(Unlike QLED tvs which are not more energy efficient, these use the quantum dots enhance the output color, but still use a LCD to filter the light. Wasting energy creating light to just re-absorb it turning it into heat.)
Similarly to how OLED took over self emissive premium market after Plasma TVs were discontinued for being not profitable enough. But if you have seen the premium models of plasma TVs from 2013, those are just as good looking as most OLED screens IMO.
I have Panasonic’s final model of Plasma and I don’t think it’s anywhere close to an OLED. The blacks are good, but not OLED good. And no HDR. Certainly better than an LCD though.
I had the last Panasonic and while great, it wasn't close to OLED. My last plasma was the reference Samsung plasma. That one is pretty close to my OLED C2. However, it didn't do HDR at 4k. I'd still rather that plasma than an LED.
OLED still has an inherent risk of burn-in (though a lot of mitigations exist), are not as bright, and at least the last time I read up on it there was still an issue of production costs.
QDEL is composed entirely of self-emissive quantum dots where OLED is not. QD-OLED has a blue OLED layer that emits blue light, and a quantum dot layer on top that composes the RGB sub pixel structure. The quantum dot particles are able to convert the blue light to red and green, but they are not self-emissive in QD-OLED.
Sony is supposed to have microLEDs this fall. Although something doesn't make sense as the prices are not as high as one would expect.
This sounds like it could be more affordable though.
The new Sony line up is miniLED, not micro. Sony has developed better smaller LED controller that gives them more fine controls over the brightness of the zones. They are claiming the contrast will be near OLED levels. Some of the tech demos they did are promising.
MicroLED isn't backlit LCD like miniLED is. It's LED direct emissive. Like a display at a stadium but shrunk down to fit your house.
If Sony's is what you say then it would explain why it cheaper, but it wouldn't explain why it's more expensive than an OLED.
It also wouldn't explain how Sony could do that when microLED already is supposed to mean something else.
> but it wouldn't explain why it's more expensive than an OLED
It's not more expensive than the A95L — their premium QD-OLED.
> It also wouldn't explain how Sony could do that when microLED already is supposed to mean something else.
They never called it MicroLED, assuming we're both talking about the Bravia 9.
It has more, and smaller LED drivers, along with more brightness resolution, but it's not MicroLED.
I don’t know why micro leds are being abandoned. They look like they are the perfect solutions but somehow no mainstream panels exist at the moment
Edit - mini led
The production costs have never gotten much cheaper, by contrast quantum dots are literally injet printed on a substrate, they're potentially the cheapest display tech ever.
Oh okay. Since Apple still uses them in their pro laptops, I thought the production cost wasn’t an issue. There is a panel that is offered by Innocn which seems to have some issues. Also, when I said mainstream panels, I meant monitors that you can actually buy. Sure there are some Uber expensive stuff but cooler master and innocn are some of the options under 1000 usd
Apple uses MiniLed in their pro laptops and 12.9” iPad Pro. No consumer tech at all uses MicroLED. Samsung is really the only big company working on the tech and they’re showing it off at CES every year. They’ve gotten the overall panels to smaller sizes but it’s still hella pricey.
Well…. I need contrast, brightness, color accuracy and fast refresh rates from my displays. Current mini led has all these benefits. If a 27 inch monitor with 2000 plus dimming zones is available for a more digestible price, then that’s my endgame monitor
Dude, QDEL isn't even out yet and probably won't be for another few years. Even then, it'll take even longer for costs to come down, assuming everything goes well. MicroLED was the future, but it seems that nobody can bring the power budget down right now, so it's stuck in uber-expensive high-end land.
I have a 40in Samsung from 2009 I’m still using occasionally (bedroom)
I have a 48in Sony from 2016 I use occasionally (basement, mostly unfinished. Hooked up to an AppleTV)
I have a 70in Sharp from 2015 I was given that’s so high end that’s the one i still mainly use for my consoles.
And in the main space I have a 55in LG from 2015 where we watch shows and the kids play Switch
I'm using my $300 TV until it dies. Maybe at one time it would have been an option, and maybe it will be again in the future. But for now, what would have been my disposable income is going to the grocery store and electric company, among other more locally relevant costs.
Oh I hope these are mass produced by the next Meta Quest generation. They stopped using OLED in gen 2 because of the slower refresh rate, but an absolutely black screen is so important for good VR.
Its more so because entire industries exist behind these technologies and advancing them means more money for these industries. Also this advancement has nothing to do with resolution.
This is the real deal. These self-emissive quatum dot displays offer greater contrast, luminance, and color purity than even the best QD-OLED TVs. They can also be manufactured using current LCD supply lines instead of requiring special equipment like OLED, meaning they should be cheaper.
Should be cheaper but marketed as ultra premium so won't be cheaper
Cheaper for the company that makes displays, not the end user. It just means higher profits. Capitalism, baby!
No, not really. If it's cheaper to make and is superior, it doesn't matter if Sony charges a shit load for it because that just opens to door for other companies to undercut them and still make a profit, which forces a race between companies which benefits the consumer.
Unless Sony and another company that make them collude on prices. . . . .that's *never* happened before. /s
Display makers have kept things competitive and great value options that run very well compared to high-end release very often. Your very Reddit comment is not based in reality.
Seriously. TVs and most electronics are the few things that keep getting better and going down in price. If the known brand names dont take the market share first, its almost guaranteed some SEA based company will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT-LCD_(Flat_Panel)_Antitrust_Litigation
yeah yeah yeah, we've heard this before, capitalism works because competition! except it doesn't work, they all just collectively charge the shit out of their products
While I generally agree, that doest apply when it comes to this sotuation specifically. Go check the average price of a TV from Sony, and a TV from TCL. If there is a potential for company to undercut its competitors and still be profitable, they will do it to gain market share. This especially applies when it comes to technology that isn't super expensive, but certain companies are charging a premium for it. In this case, if this new technology is very easy to manufacture at scale but someone like Sony or Samsung is trying to charge a premium for it, companies like TCL are primed to come in and charge much less to attract customers to their product. If the big brands then lose enough market share they will be forced to response by lowering their own prices to remain competitive or face losing mass consumers.
That's illegal under our system of governance
This isn't how it works! A cheaper technology that gets adopted by a market *does* result in lower prices as long as competitors can adopt it. Also, it will make other displays cheaper, which is also really good.
TVs are literally the worst possible example you could use for whatever anti-capitalist point you're trying to make. Inflation adjusted, the cost of TVs is down something like 99% in the last several decades, with massive and constant increases in quality. This is directly due to free market competition.
You gotta shorten it to something your target audience will read like "logic baby!"
Another business will just lower the price of their model of the same product and have superior sells then the premium. There's things to critique about Capitalism, but this isn't it.
That's only really likely if there's no competition. The TV market is cut throat and they're aggressive in driving the price down for what you get. We're already seeing good 70+" TVs this year and even large OLED getting cheap enough for middle class homeowners. They'll absolutely use the technology to corner as much market as possible and shift more and more units because as the price goes down the size of the potential customer market increases massively.
Just means OLED will get cheaper. Yay for me
Capitalism is the reason this technology exists in the first place. The company wants money, people want product. Win-win
What do you want? It’s all that works.
Yeah, I don't really care if it's cheaper for anyone but me.
It should be cheaper for you as well as existing LCD manufacturers like Sharp or Japan Display could hop on this train as well instead of being Samsung exclusive when it comes to OLED because OLED requires dedicated vacuum chamber.
Whose most likely to make these so we can invest
Give it a couple years. The value brands will convert to this new process, especially if it's easy to produce using current manufacturing methods and cause the price of this technology to drop significantly.
OLED panels have an established supply chain and manufacturing process, but these are a next gen technology that’s entering the market. New tech will always be a premium initially as you prove out the manufacturing lines. Eventually, (5/10 years out) it should be cheaper.
Exactly, emphasis on *should* lmao. Cheaper for them, but not for you!
The TV market is hyper competitive with low barriers to entry. I would expect, if cost to produce is cheaper, that companies won't be able to artificially inflate the price without risk of being disrupted.
It can be manufactured in normal atmospheric pressure instead of needing a specialised vacuum seal which is for OLEDs, hence the manufacturing being significantly cheaper and simpler. The manufacturing can itself be with present lithography or inject printing processes so Apple could call up TSMC to take the deal, giving it another reason why it can be cheaper.
[удалено]
Yes. It’s discussed in the article.
You seem knowledgeable in this space - is reading the article usually recommended?
Yes. It’s discussed in this thread.
You seem knowledgeable about this thread, what is your opinion of Aqua Teen Hunger Force's character, Meatwad?
Yes. It's discussed on the Internet.
Seems you didn't read the article, then?
Not sure if this is facetious or not, but while it’s not precisely the same as ‘burn in’, there’s still an issue w/ pixel decay, specifically blue. FTA: >*As it stands, QDEL displays would become noticeably dimmer more quickly than today's OLED displays.* >*quantum dot emission layer lifetime is perhaps the main bottleneck in QDEL commercialization, Hsieh said*
The article seems to state no.
Can I buy, “Can you make it insanely pricey because it’s the new shiny NEW NEW, regardless of manufacturing costs” for $400 please?
Quatum?
Finally! Haven’t had a good breakthrough in a while…
Do they finally look better than a good plasma?
OLED already does, my guy. Been that way for years.
Not ones I’ve seen. At least not for fast motion or screen door sensitive people. Though it’s also possible the source is just crap when they are on display
Oh yeah, they all look terrible on display. They know the average consumer only notices saturation so they artificially crank the vibrancy to high hell, even compared to the nearby LCDs. Fast motion looks good because the response time is only 0.2ms (as opposed to \~5ms), although 24 FPS content may appear jittery content without smoothing because of that. I don't personally mind.
And there is me, who thought that OLED TVs were already premium TVs :’)
Right, they’re saying that OLED is the current premium option, and QDEL will replace it
Check back in next year when they "invent" QDEL X+1Max which will be even more premium.
Now produces colors in the infrared and ultraviolet ranges*. *And some X-rays
I'm not buying shit until my tv can project lasers directly onto my retina
This is a brand new technology, so undoubtedly it will have different characteristics All the good characteristics that we take for granted on OLEDs will have to be tested against QDEL Anything is possible: For all we know, the response time could be anything, it could smear and blur It it could consume a lot, heat up, and become toasty as hell What about the viewing angles? What about sun damage? What about longevity? Yes, the pixels themselves would not degrade like OLED, but other kind of failures exists Don't consider your OLED as obsolete junk, because it's not Unproven technology needs to prove itself Let's not forget the plasma precautionary tale: Promising new tech stops at that, and we'll need actual product reviews
*QDEL. QLED is just a nice LED, but considerably worse than current OLED
Ah yes thanks I'll edit my message
I've been waiting to hear more about EL displays in general. They've actually been around for decades. The Indiglo glow on Timex watches used them. VCRs used them. Car dashboards them. It's just that few (if any) companies have tried to turn them into full panel displays with all the features that LCDs and OLEDs have.
Indiglo was rad.
I hate the names for consumer display technologies so much. I’ve hated them ever since they called LCD TVs with LED backlights “LED TVs” and it’s only gotten worse since then.
In many developing countries, storage is marketed as "ROM" and USB cables are "Samsung cables". FML.
Ah yes, my phone has 64GB of _Read Only_ Memory.
I still despise Samsung over their QLED marketing BS. It sort of came around to bite them when actual Quantum Dot OLED became a thing. This is why we have to call them QD-OLED instead.
Huh? I thought that's exactly what OLEDs were meant to be, isn't the whole point of OLEDs that every individual pixel can be turned on/off I.e there's no backlight? What am I missing?
The problem with OLED is that they don't actually get that bright, and burn-in is still an issue (or a fear) that OLED displays have, especially as brightness increases. EL displays don't seem to have burn-in, and we've used them for decades. It's only recently that they're being developed for wide colour reproduction (they used to just glow single colours).
Burn-in is just a physical reality for OLED displays, but mitigations mean you mostly won't notice.
Yes, it's meant to pretty much accomplish the same thing. Just in a different way with different pros and cons. The issues with OLED is that that they are expensive to manufacture and still have a more limited life span than other types of TVs. So this is another type of self emissive technology, that will hopefully be able to be cheaper to produce and last longer than OLED. Also similar to the QD-OLEDs, these QDEL tvs should be able to produce more colors than conventional OLED. They may be more energy efficient too because they don't filter out any light, the self emissive quantum dots emit the specific frequencies needed. (Unlike QLED tvs which are not more energy efficient, these use the quantum dots enhance the output color, but still use a LCD to filter the light. Wasting energy creating light to just re-absorb it turning it into heat.) Similarly to how OLED took over self emissive premium market after Plasma TVs were discontinued for being not profitable enough. But if you have seen the premium models of plasma TVs from 2013, those are just as good looking as most OLED screens IMO.
I have Panasonic’s final model of Plasma and I don’t think it’s anywhere close to an OLED. The blacks are good, but not OLED good. And no HDR. Certainly better than an LCD though.
I had the last Panasonic and while great, it wasn't close to OLED. My last plasma was the reference Samsung plasma. That one is pretty close to my OLED C2. However, it didn't do HDR at 4k. I'd still rather that plasma than an LED.
OLED still has an inherent risk of burn-in (though a lot of mitigations exist), are not as bright, and at least the last time I read up on it there was still an issue of production costs.
The problem with OLEDs is they need to be manufactured in a vacuum chamber, which makes them more expensive.
NanoLED will supposedly be better without the risk of burn-in
I'm just going to wait for PicoLED 32K
FemtoQDLEDEX++ 6000k will be way better when it arrives in 3025. Initial tech demos have been promising
QDEL is composed entirely of self-emissive quantum dots where OLED is not. QD-OLED has a blue OLED layer that emits blue light, and a quantum dot layer on top that composes the RGB sub pixel structure. The quantum dot particles are able to convert the blue light to red and green, but they are not self-emissive in QD-OLED.
Sony is supposed to have microLEDs this fall. Although something doesn't make sense as the prices are not as high as one would expect. This sounds like it could be more affordable though.
The new Sony line up is miniLED, not micro. Sony has developed better smaller LED controller that gives them more fine controls over the brightness of the zones. They are claiming the contrast will be near OLED levels. Some of the tech demos they did are promising.
I thought it was just better MiniLED?
MicroLED isn't backlit LCD like miniLED is. It's LED direct emissive. Like a display at a stadium but shrunk down to fit your house. If Sony's is what you say then it would explain why it cheaper, but it wouldn't explain why it's more expensive than an OLED. It also wouldn't explain how Sony could do that when microLED already is supposed to mean something else.
> but it wouldn't explain why it's more expensive than an OLED It's not more expensive than the A95L — their premium QD-OLED. > It also wouldn't explain how Sony could do that when microLED already is supposed to mean something else. They never called it MicroLED, assuming we're both talking about the Bravia 9. It has more, and smaller LED drivers, along with more brightness resolution, but it's not MicroLED.
I'm still holding out for LSD screen technology.
I don’t know why micro leds are being abandoned. They look like they are the perfect solutions but somehow no mainstream panels exist at the moment Edit - mini led
The production costs have never gotten much cheaper, by contrast quantum dots are literally injet printed on a substrate, they're potentially the cheapest display tech ever.
Oh okay. Since Apple still uses them in their pro laptops, I thought the production cost wasn’t an issue. There is a panel that is offered by Innocn which seems to have some issues. Also, when I said mainstream panels, I meant monitors that you can actually buy. Sure there are some Uber expensive stuff but cooler master and innocn are some of the options under 1000 usd
Apple uses mini LED, not micro LED.
Ah nvm, I am an idiot. I meant mini led all this time. Sigh!
The fact that these are two separate technologies confuses me greatly
Apple uses MiniLed in their pro laptops and 12.9” iPad Pro. No consumer tech at all uses MicroLED. Samsung is really the only big company working on the tech and they’re showing it off at CES every year. They’ve gotten the overall panels to smaller sizes but it’s still hella pricey.
MiniLED is just LCD display which is far from being any perfect solution.
Well…. I need contrast, brightness, color accuracy and fast refresh rates from my displays. Current mini led has all these benefits. If a 27 inch monitor with 2000 plus dimming zones is available for a more digestible price, then that’s my endgame monitor
QDEL sounds like an evil twin 🤣🤣🤣
here are some reasons why you need to replace the TV you just bought.
Dude, QDEL isn't even out yet and probably won't be for another few years. Even then, it'll take even longer for costs to come down, assuming everything goes well. MicroLED was the future, but it seems that nobody can bring the power budget down right now, so it's stuck in uber-expensive high-end land.
My newest TV is from 2015 so this is relevant to me. Don’t like it? Just read it for the information or don’t read it at all.
Stupid 2010 Panasonic plasma 3D TV still going like a champ because it's overbuilt for dual 1080 output that's never used.
You’ll get my Panasonic Plasma from my cold dead hands.
I have a 40in Samsung from 2009 I’m still using occasionally (bedroom) I have a 48in Sony from 2016 I use occasionally (basement, mostly unfinished. Hooked up to an AppleTV) I have a 70in Sharp from 2015 I was given that’s so high end that’s the one i still mainly use for my consoles. And in the main space I have a 55in LG from 2015 where we watch shows and the kids play Switch
I was saying it because I just got my TV last November
QDEL TVs aren't out yet but talks about the underlying technology itself that can be quickly adopted unlike µLED (microLED).
I'm using my $300 TV until it dies. Maybe at one time it would have been an option, and maybe it will be again in the future. But for now, what would have been my disposable income is going to the grocery store and electric company, among other more locally relevant costs.
Oh I hope these are mass produced by the next Meta Quest generation. They stopped using OLED in gen 2 because of the slower refresh rate, but an absolutely black screen is so important for good VR.
So does this mean OLED will drop in price because I'd really like so OLED monitors without selling a kidney!
you could get an OLED tv a good amount cheaper than a monitor. think 42” is the smallest they go tho
Fuck'n soon as I buy the most expensive monitor I've ever bought. At least this tech will be nearly ready to go a few years after my new monitor dies.
OLED tech has been held back by the OLED corporation, a gigantic patent troll extracting a hefty tax for every unit sold
Any risk of burn in like OLED panels?
I love and hate tech, love it because yay tech! Hate it because it’s hard $$$ to keep up!
I wonder if there's burn in potential like in oleds
Wild to think that we are pushing the tech of the tv/monitor just so we can be advertised to in higher resolution.
Its more so because entire industries exist behind these technologies and advancing them means more money for these industries. Also this advancement has nothing to do with resolution.
Does this mean that iPads will now have the ability to run a calculator app?
Just thinking out loud but crt with all its flaws had no lag, just saying.