Eyes-on with Samsung's 31-inch and 14-inch OLED TVs -- take that Sony

After questioning Sony's ability to deliver their 11-inch OLED TV to market earlier this year, Samsung comes into CES with a pair of Sony trumping TVs. Their 31-inch and 14-inch OLEDs easily best Sony's 27-inch prototype and 11-inch production sets. Both of the Sammys feature the same amazing contrast which makes us swoon over OLEDs while offering 1080p video in a crazy thin panel. Samsung has no plans to take these production. Then again, with Sony's XEL-1 already out there, we all know how Samsung hates to be second-best.

Gallery: Samsung's 31-inch and 14-inch OLED TVs -- take that Sony

• 
• 
• 
• 

[Vanguard @ Jan 9th 2008 12:56PM]

Samsung,

Beautiful!
Welcome to the club.
When does this bad boy ship?

[macserv @ Feb 24th 2008 9:44PM]

It doesn't. That's why Sony still wins :D

[macserv @ Feb 24th 2008 9:46PM]

I should add to that...

This looks like it's going to be one of those great competitive back-and-forth battles that spurs innovation and ends up being great for the consumer. With SED dead, my first HDTV will be OLED-based, and I can't wait much longer... PS3 games look really bad on a 27" Trinitron.

[MaX PL and the 360 r4pe Tr4iN @ Jan 9th 2008 12:57PM]

i like the second picture...

[Mike @ Jan 9th 2008 1:29PM]

The one with the "take no pictures" sign below the TV?

Rule breakers...

[Sean @ Jan 9th 2008 12:58PM]

No photos please. Sir, I said no photos! Can't you read the sign???

[kadajawi @ Jan 9th 2008 1:12PM]

Looks good, but can they make it anti glare? Or else I will probably skip OLEDs.

[Baluki @ Jan 9th 2008 1:16PM]

Looks pretty cool. But what the hell's up with the huge base? Why bother making such a skinny TV if you're not going to hang it on the wall?

[mike @ Jan 9th 2008 1:37PM]

Well, see that's the disadvantage with these super slim displays: no where to put the hardware needed to run the display. The panel itself is thin, but not the power supply, tuner, inputs and outputs and any other component usually found in current TVs. Things like notebook computers get away with thing screen enclosures with LCDs because they have the rest of the computer to put the associated components in. Current LCDs and plasmas are restricted in thickness by their components' sizes and the size of the actual display itself-- the larger the display, the more square footage you have on the back to put the electronics. After that you're only limited by the miniaturization of the electronic components.

If there were to be affordable OLED TVs in the next 5 years without large bases, they would only be marginally thinner than current LCDs and plasmas because of the lack of the needed back light. I think when the time comes for mainstream OLED TVs, they will be two components: the display with some kind of battery integrated into it or a small power supply, and a base station that transmits video to the display via wireless HDMI or whatever standard we have in 10 years. The display could be mounted on the base station too, possibly for charging if it is small enough and has a battery power supply.

Just my $0.02. hah

[thebigyin @ Jan 10th 2008 12:18AM]

I agree with Baluki - there's no point in "the thinnest screen ever" if it is attached to a brick. I know that some people are suggesting that "eventually" we will have HD wireless connection between a thin screen and the rest of the hardware but we already have this. The absolutely thinnest screen possible - a coat of paint - plus the hardware in a separate box - an LCD or DLP PROJECTOR !!! This enables the transfer of High Definition pictures from the hardware to the screen with NO Digital Compression by using the Visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum so no trouble with the FCC :-)

[bag @ Jan 9th 2008 1:22PM]

why does engadget hate sony so much?

[BigPana @ Jan 9th 2008 1:32PM]

Do you read tech news at all?

[silverblackvoid @ Jan 9th 2008 1:36PM]

its the new norm. people hate sony because they think it makes them cool.

[kavendano14 @ Jan 9th 2008 2:47PM]

And people like Apple beacuse they think they're cool

[omf @ Jan 9th 2008 3:55PM]

I hate you. You're cool.

[Justin Eaton @ Jan 9th 2008 1:29PM]

What's that crap under the TV? I hope that's not where all the stuff really is, because that's totally cheating. "Hey, our TV is 14 inches thick, but it's got a goddamn foundation underneath."

[inside the machine @ Jan 9th 2008 1:57PM]

@Justin Eaton... lol 14 inches

FYI... Samsung has had a 40" OLED for over a year but it is all hush hush in the development phase. They have had issues acheiving the same brightness in that large format OLED display versus their current LCD and the newer LED models they have released. Having said that, Sony and Samsung are the front runners in OLED (Sammy sharing manufacturing facilities with Sony, and incorporating OLED into the CE products first).

While Sony are in competition with Samsung, I think you will see some really cool stuff coming from both companies on the OLED front in the next 12 months.

[Kiwi616 @ Jan 9th 2008 1:49PM]

What's wrong with this....more competition, better pricing for me and you.

[Max @ Jan 9th 2008 2:00PM]

Samsung has no plans to take these production? So...uh...what exactly is the point of showing off an electronic device for consumers that consumers can't have, at a Consumer Electronics Show?

[Organic_Shadow @ Jan 9th 2008 2:39PM]

They brought it so Engadget would have some ammo on Sony, regardless of whether or not it will go into production. Sony already has large OLED tv's in working prototype phase, they just don't have them out at the show.

[omf @ Jan 9th 2008 3:56PM]

It's basically them saying, "Yeah, well, we could do it if we wanted to, but we don't want to, so there!"

[Andrew @ Jan 9th 2008 4:33PM]

That's a great comment. Indeed, what's the point showing a product that will never be sold to a consumer at the CONSUMER entertainment show? Do the organizers even have rules regarding stuff like this? I mean it's a great way to steal thunder from your competitors while not actually offering anything for sale?

[Jon Graft @ Jan 9th 2008 2:29PM]

Had SONY created the bigger OLED screen and shown it off, you bastards would be quoting some stupid incident about 3 years ago in SONYs past somehow proving that no matter how big SONYs TVs are, they suck. Engadget is VERY anti-Sony and it sucks...

[Student Driver @ Jan 10th 2008 11:34AM]

I didn't notice. But then again, I hate Sony.

[Mark Leach @ Jan 9th 2008 2:32PM]

the base of these TVs don't look that big compared to Sony's. but get rid of the gloss or the OLED will be pointless.

[ug @ Jan 9th 2008 4:03PM]

Sammy??? Chalk up another bit of annoying lingo to the Engadget dictionary, besides "lappie" and hip-hop usage of "drop" = "release".

[Okki @ Jan 9th 2008 4:24PM]

Base or no base... I'll still take one....think of it as B&O cool... without the B&O price... which reminds me.. WHAT is the price anyway????

[TIMMAH! @ Jan 9th 2008 5:14PM]

I didn't think going bigger was that much of a big deal with OLED. Wasn't this the technology this is inkjetted onto substrate? How hard is is to print up a bigger display?

I thought the limiting factor on OLED was the short lifetime of the blue outputting layers. Have they fixed this problem? I recall that Sony's latest 11" set is only rated out to 10K hours, so maybe this is still a issue?

[joaquim.mira @ Jan 9th 2008 5:38PM]

Why can't they just develop the ultimate TV and be done with it, these TVs look beautifully tempting.

[jitty @ Jan 9th 2008 6:32PM]

So what are the specs? It's bigger but is it as thin? And is the contrast ratio as high? Is it going to come out soon, even the 14inch one? Otherwise a larger screen is pointless...

[Motoken @ Jan 9th 2008 8:06PM]

i Sony's Tv is better, this OLED has a weird stand design

[daniel @ Jan 9th 2008 8:46PM]

How so?

[Motoken @ Jan 9th 2008 9:23PM]

i like the black shiny style that sony did, this TV is dull silver and reminds me too much of crappy DVD players. In general i'm tiered of seeing that stupid dull silver tone on everything.

[Motoken @ Jan 9th 2008 9:25PM]

i like the black shiny style that sony did, this TV is dull silver and reminds me too much of crappy DVD players. In general i'm tiered of seeing that stupid dull silver tone on everything.

[David @ Jan 9th 2008 10:38PM]

If you were smart and looked at all the pictures they have black to and the color shouldn't make them better

[~bluray~ @ Jan 9th 2008 8:52PM]

wow...samsung's look better but probaly never going in production soon. Samsung=great look sony=ugly base....but sony still wins cause there are actually out there. they should have a joint production...samsungs base with sonys production

[Bryan @ Jan 9th 2008 11:28PM]

I think it is more like people have an intolerance to hearing anyone dare say something critical about Sony. Have any of you actually compared the price of a Sony set to that of a Samsung with an equal spec sheet? Sony products cost more because people think they're better and will pay more for them, not because it is the actual truth. Samsung and Sony jointly manufacture their LCDs at the same plant, but Sony will slap a good few extra hundred on the price tag just because their name lets them. No matter who you are, if you're on top, you're bound to draw an extraordinary amount of criticism and you should just accept that for what it is.

[Jim H @ Jan 10th 2008 1:24AM]

The general concensus is that the Sony x3500 is better from the processing point of view than the Samsung so it merits the extra cash. Unfortunately for me, that means that I'm probably going to have to fork out for the Sony even though I prefer the Samsung looks. I just want a good TV that's likely to be fault-free when I get it home and I've more confidence in Sony delivering that than Samsung at the moment. When that position changes then Samsung is likely to start charging just as much for their TVs as Sony:(.

[eddie_nutritious @ Jan 10th 2008 3:25AM]

When will the myth of Sony and Samsung LCD TVs being the same go away?

Both companies own S-LCD Corporation, a company in South Korea owned by Samsung Electronics (50% plus one share) and Sony Corp (50% minus one share). I guess you could say that Samsung technically has the controlling interest, but they collaborate on the production and technology together. However, so do LG and Philips, and the new Panasonic, Hitachi, and Canon LCD group effort is along the same lines.

I think Sharp is the only major CE company (barring the Chinese/Taiwanese OEMs) that is totally independent when it comes to manufacturing their own panels, and that's only because they were really the first to embrace LCD when plasma seemed like the only option for large flat panel TVs. Toshiba has a deal to supply Sharp with electronic components, while Sharp will supply Tosh's larger LCD panels, but the panel itself is 100% Sharp.

And as far as this Samsung OLED trumping Sony goes -- big deal. There's no market ETA or price on the Sammy, while the admittedly small and expensive Sony XEL-1 is available to actually buy now. By the time everyone catches up, Sony will (in theory) have more usable sizes available for actual sale, and the price will drop as manufacturing efficiencies are worked out, just as any other technology. That's not to say that Samsung, or anyone else, can't do the same, but the fact that they balked at Sony's ability to bring an OLED TV to market in 2007, and that Toshiba announced that they are canning their OLED plans until 2010, leads one to believe that Sony is seriously pushing forward with this, and stands the best chance of being in front in the future.

Sony was the king of CRT, dropped the ball with LCD/plasma (among other things...), struggled to make a decent comeback, and is shooting to be the OLED leader. Howard Stringer pointed this out more or less with his CES keynote. They seem to have learned that they can't rest on their laurels or the once-golden Sony name anymore, and have already begun on the technology to replace LCD. Will that bring them back to the top of the CE market? Time will tell, but the current evidence seems to put them in the best manufacturing position with regards to OLED.

[sim @ Feb 19th 2008 3:50PM]

Actually, the only thing Sony and Samsung jointly produce is the mother glass the panel is made from, nothing else. Sony also put more money into design and build quality (even down to the small details like the Sony logo being made from metal and fixed on the front rather than just printed) so i dont agree that people pay more for sony just because of the name, you expect to pay a little bit more for a premium product. Surely Sony must have a good reputation if you think people are willing to spend more money because of their brand.

[Chris @ Jan 10th 2008 3:42AM]

How can they call those "crazy thin" panels, that base is like 10 inches! the whole point of thin is so you can hang it on a wall or small shelf. 10" is bigger than almost any LCD or Plasma.

try hanging that on a wall.

[redrumz @ Jan 10th 2008 9:07AM]

Haha, i love how in one of the pictures there's a "no pictures" sign XD