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
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.
27 Comments on Sony Quits Consumer OLED Display Business - For Now Only?
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?
if i have to upgrade even higher for 2560x1440, is it really worth it as a gamer?
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.
bye bye Sony..
Damn I should stop dreamin' like that :D
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...
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.