Samsung teases with 50-inch OLED TV for CES, scolds us for caring
by Thomas Ricker 
posted Dec 3rd 2008 at 5:25AM
When SED development hit the brakes a few years ago, OLED technology quickly stepped in to fill the emptiness felt by our fickle hearts' desire for the blackest of blacks. Up until now, prototype OLED panels have been limited to a max size of about 40-inches. But these won't be available for consumers until 2010 or so. For now, we're "stuck with" Sony's little 11-inch XEL-1 if anyone actually wants to purchase an OLED TV for their "I'm sure that if we marketed such a set at ten times the price of current LCD TVs, which is what it would be now, no-one would buy it."Kim then shifts into sales-mode by pointing out that Samsung's more power-efficient 240Hz LCDs and Plasmas with highly-reflective black panels and LED edge-lighting are quickly cutting into any advantage offered by OLEDs -- including thinness if you factor in the additional electronics you'd have to slap onto the back of those 3-mm thick OLED panels to create a TV. Of course, manufacturers can also dump all that tech into a display-side box much like Sony does with it's XEL-1, but hey, he's on a roll. When the interview with What Hi-Fi ended, Kim presumably kicked a puppy just to drive his points home.
[Via OLED-Display]
Filed under: Displays
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Someone is here @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:32AM
Market will crash.
Nobody will buy LCD's anymore because everybody wants OLED. Companies will have to bring out OLED's.
Consumer does not buy because price is too high. Companies do not make profit. Reduce price. Consumer wins again!
seriousam7 @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:43AM
dumbass goes back to sleep
Someone is here @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:44AM
Ya. You can go back and sleep! :)
heffeque @ Dec 3rd 2008 6:02AM
Wow! What witty remarks!
Someone is here @ Dec 3rd 2008 6:16AM
I know. Can you believe it?
This is engadget. We are suppose to love each other.
I just don't understand.
Where is the loooove...?
LOL
Anyways, that's what good comebacks are for!
I burnt you seriousam7!
It's alright.
Chris @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:06AM
who invited Buzz Killington to the party?
w4rh34rt @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:13PM
Chris man, why your not 'Highest ranked' is a mystery. That was the funniest thing I've read in ages =]
eggothewaffle @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:39AM
"When the interview with What Hi-Fi ended, Kim presumably kicked a puppy just to drive his points home."
It's true, I saw this in stunning HD on Viddler.
AlDeezy @ Dec 3rd 2008 6:22AM
Orly"picture of weird owl", or however you say it. lol
Crayola @ Dec 3rd 2008 6:23AM
SED is simply 10 years too late... If it had came out earlier, we would have seen Plasma and SED competing with each other. OLED however has a lot of wider potential, even in applications of lighting, in unconventional ways too.
Darkflame @ Dec 3rd 2008 6:52AM
I just want Transparent OLED based HMDs :-/
They are already possible for that.
They would probably need a normal LCD back too. (else you couldnt get black at all), but even combined they should be perfect for HMDs. (much lighter, no backlight needed, power efficiant).
I dont want bigger tvs, I want my AR glass's darnit!
Mr.Ironic @ Dec 3rd 2008 8:40AM
Yes, AR glasses will come out and then we can do away with consoles as per my plan.
Aarun @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:12AM
Hahahaha I totally lol'd at the puppy thing. Reality can often be quite amusing I think.
Ghen @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:14AM
I just want a TV with more than 1080 resolution and broadcast TV to send me entertainment at that quality too. There's no point in even going to 1080p right now unless you're a Sony fanboy.
VitalyTheUnknown @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:56AM
Hey man, seriously... wtf
Levi @ Dec 3rd 2008 12:12PM
you are an idiot. 1080p is awesome, and you are jealous of it. A more duitable comment would go something like this: there's less of a point to go 1080p on smaller sets, and no reason to buy a 40" or larger HDTV unless it IS 1080p.
Jim @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:56AM
As long as it has the bigass base thing attached to it, the thickness of the panel is really irrelevant.
vdogg89 @ Dec 3rd 2008 10:09AM
seriously, thickness means nothing when all the components are shoved into a box at the base. Try putting those components up behind the screen and its the same thickness as a regular lcd.
CharonIDRONES @ Dec 3rd 2008 7:07PM
Don't you mean 0.3mm OLED screens and not 3mm?
Loban @ Dec 3rd 2008 9:53AM
Eh, I'll stick with Plasma for now. It's simply unbeatable for the time being. Let me know when OLED hits $2000 for a 50", then I'll be interested, until then Plasma FTW.
Ordeith @ Dec 3rd 2008 1:14PM
Electricity must be free for you.
Someone is here @ Dec 3rd 2008 2:46PM
I say LCD FTW. Plasme = too much heat and electricity used. Plus it's shiny as hell. One window and you are screwed.
Loban @ Dec 3rd 2008 2:53PM
I never said Plasma didn't produce more heat or cost more to power, I simply meant that as far as the actual picture goes (the most important thing in a TV for me), Plasma wins. And I don't know how long it's been since you've looked at plasma, but they all come with anti-glare coatings on them now, just like LCD. I wish people would make sure they knew what they were talking about before commenting.
And you're making some pretty big assumptions on how significant the energy cost is to me or even that I care at all. Sacrifices must be made to have the best.
sLY @ Dec 3rd 2008 2:49PM
Eh the last part of the post was probably right... LCDs and Plasmas are still getting better and better (LED backlighting and such) that any advantages OLED may have now will be moot by the time it is actually ready to go to market. By then, LCDs and Plasmas will probably produce nearly as good or perhaps even a better picture than OLED. That said I would still like to see OLED make it to market because competition is always good.
Hurin @ Dec 3rd 2008 5:29PM
"When SED development hit the brakes a few years ago"
It never did "hit the brakes." Jeez, we're now repeating this once a day here on Engadget.
Engadget got the story wrong "a few years ago". . . and has been referring back to their erroneous reporting at every opportunity since. Now twice in two days.
Canon continued to develop SED even as they were barred from releasing any products. They said outright that while they were not launching any products, they were actually refocusing development on reducing production costs. Engadget reported the exact opposite and reported that Canon was not going to release any SED products *and* had stopped work towards reducing costs. . . and had thus, stopped working altogether on SED. Sadly, Engadget continues to mis-report this based on that one mis-read article to this very day. And apparently there's no way to stop them from doing so into the future. They just don't seem to care.
Here's a link to my comment from yesterday explaining the whole, sorry tale.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/02/canon-cleared-to-resume-work-on-sed-tv-now-that-the-world-doesn/comments/15917453/
And yeah, I've tried to remain polite about it. But how long can you watch people who claim to be interested in facts continue to totally ignore an obviously valid correction (sent via comments, feedback forms, and emails) that continues to erroneously color, influence, and undermine their SED (and now OLED) coverage?
Engadget, if you're not willing to at least acknowledge that you got the story wrong and then compounded things each time you have gone back and referred to to it during each subsequent SED news item over the last year or two, at *least* please stop referring back to what is obviously flawed reporting and conclusions.
You guys got it wrong. Please stop making it worse.
Best.
H
kingu @ Dec 4th 2008 1:24AM
I bet H(ead)S(hot) Kim knows nobody would buy LCDs if they put 50" OLED's on the market now.