Please stop.
What you are re-hashing is OLED TVs losing at MAX BRIGHTNESS vs traditional TFT with quirks, e.g. Samsung's Bazinga QLED.
None of that is relevant to a notebook screen (and, frankly, nor to the TVs). Heck, LG just released 250/300 nit laptop.
Unless you are only using your notebook - or in this case, desktop PC - in a very dim or dark room, normal full-screen brightness levels are very relevant for their use. Heck, it's equally relevant for TVs too. As for those laptops you're mentioning - do they have any kind of ABL? Are you able to control or override it? I would assume not - most if not all consumer OLEDs have quite aggressive auto dimming to counteract burn-in.
Also, I'm not necessarily talking about
max brightness in all scenarios - though in a way, yes, because any OLED will have to run pretty much at max brightness in any moderately well lit room. That's how limited their brightness output is. If your room is bright, has any direct sunlight, has large windows, then an OLED will struggle during daylight hours when compared to a good FALD LCD. Those LCDs won't be close to max brightness unless the room is bathed in sunlight though - they won't need it.
There's a reason why OLEDs are never the recommendation for a bright room. That QN90A has more than 3x the brightness for a 100% window compared to an LG G2, and more than 3x at a 25% window as well. That is a very, very perceptible difference. It's not one that's even remotely necessary in a dim room - though if the FALD system is good it can help bring properly mastered HDR content closer to how it's supposed to look, even if that look is rather uncomfortable for your eyes - but it's a very real difference.
Yeah, what about it? Someone who stopped even considering non OLED screens since Samsung Galaxy S2 phone asking. Oh, forgot to mention, my 2 tablets are also OLED. (OK there is also that heavy garbage by Apple, from school)
You seem to be entirely missing the part of this where the larger an OLED screen is, the more power it needs to output similar levels of brightness, and thus the more cooling it needs to not burn in rapidly. There's a reason why you can find brighter OLEDs on most flagship smartphones than you do in flagship TVs - their relative heat output is
tiny due to their small size. (And, of course, their use cases generally tend to be less continuous, which allows for more cooldown time.) And, crucially, even those tiny OLEDs won't sustain their 1000+ nit brightness for a full screen image or for any significant amount of time. Without a heatsink - which most OLED TVs and monitors lack - you can't even come close to phone levels of brightness.
Put it this way: watch any kind of not very dim content on a good FALD LCD next to an OLED in any room that isn't very dim or entirely dark, and you'll see a very significant difference. That doesn't mean that the OLED is
bad, it's just
worse in that scenario. It's also
better in other scenarios, such as very dim rooms, as you simply don't need as much brightness then - and even in brighter settings OLEDs punch above their weight (brightness output) due to their high contrast aiding in how clear the image comes off. Is that so hard to grasp?
I'm glad to see that you're so intent on having actually productive discussions here. Such intellectually stimulating conversation. Still don't see how you've in any way invalidated the core of my point on economics of scale for monitors vs. laptops though.
And btw. HDR is a scam.
Especially for OLED's:
Yeah, there are no TVs that can produce
real HDR - but some can do a decent facsimile. That's reliant on quality source material and a panel and processor that can decode that material properly according to a good HDR standard though, which gets complicated quickly. OLEDs have the contrast to do great-looking pseudo-HDR in dim and dark rooms due to their low brightness floor and lack of backlight glow/bleed, similar to how good FALD LCDs can do some of the same in brighter rooms. But of course none of them come close to the 10 000-nit HDR monitors used for mastering, and thus can't recreate the effect
properly. But that arguably isn't necessary either - any improvement in dynamic range is a good thing.
Guess the display refresh mode has to run a lot to fix image retention & burn in.
