Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Hardware Technology

LCD TVs Won't See Any Further Development (tomsguide.com) 70

Posted by BeauHD from the it's-official dept.
According to an industry insider, LCD TVs won't see any further development because all new R&D money is being spent on self-emissive displays like MicroLED and OLED, as well as on backlight technology like Mini-LED. Tom's Guide reports: According to Bob Raikes from Display Daily, it's all about OLED development. "I asked EMD (which is the US name of Merck KGaA and is by far the dominant supplier of LC materials), what they were doing to push LC materials for displays onto the next stage ... They are developing LCs for privacy windows and antennas, but they told us that 'there is no pull from clients' for significant development in LC materials," Raikes wrote in a recent article. "That shouldn't have been a surprise to me -- I have been talking about the switch to OLED and other emissive displays for the premium end (and later the mainstream) of the display market for a lot of years. Still, after decades of reporting on LC developments, it took a moment to sink in!"

As for what, specifically, manufacturers are working on, it's the production of QD-OLED panels for use in the high-end Samsung and Sony TVs like the Samsung S95C OLED and Sony A95K OLED as well as the development of PHOLED panels that use a blue phosphorescent material that has a longer shelf life and can go brighter than the traditional organic material in OLED panels. [...] Sadly, LCD TVs' days are coming to a close, but OLED TVs are still going strong.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LCD TVs Won't See Any Further Development More

LCD TVs Won't See Any Further Development

Comments Filter:

  • They have no "Pull" for LC stuff. Hey, I have two monstrous LCD TVs, 75" and 86", bought in the last 2 years. They're LCD 'cuz I saw the prices of OLED's. Is not my sale a "Pull?" Well, maybe I just don't count, wouldn't be the 1st time...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      They're LCD 'cuz I saw the prices of OLED's. Is not my sale a "Pull?"

      What would you have bought, if LCD and OLED TVs were priced the same, or OLED TVs were actually cheaper than their LCD counterparts?

      I suspect that will be the case in the near future, and that is what they mean by lack of "pull". Very few people are interested in paying more money to get an inferior/outdated technology.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        What would you have bought, if LCD and OLED TVs were priced the same, or OLED TVs were actually cheaper than their LCD counterparts?

        That depends on what other disadvantages a cheap OLED TV might have, such as more burn-in or more surveillance of viewing habits.

    • Re: What Do They Consider "Pull" (Score:4, Informative)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Monday June 19, 2023 @11:00PM (#63617128)

      Those displays you referenced exist, so no new "development" required for them to continue to exist and be manufactured moving forward.

      That's my take, that we are pretty much as far as we can reasonably advance LCD tech. You can have supremely dense and supremely large LCD panels at diet cheap prices. What more do we need to develop at this point?

      Meanwhile, uLED and OLED need development. Very good in some respects, but expensive and struggle with burn in.

      Then there's the curve ball where they mention "mini led" which is really just a different backlight strategy for LCD, so... Guess they even say that there's further work on LCD panels...

      • Then there's the curve ball where they mention "mini led" which is really just a different backlight strategy for LCD, so... Guess they even say that there's further work on LCD panels...

        Not really a curveball for the article. They are very clear in the article that they are talking about development of liquid crystal technology itself. This is completely unrelated to the backlight, which is why they are also talking about dimmable windows, and antennas, not just TVs.

    • Anyone who thinks there's no pull for LCD TV tech is just having a pull (Australian slang term, not the UK one).
    • So glad my 2009 Panasonic Plasma is still fine. After many, many hours no sigh of burn-in. :) Only reason to move will be size, those top tier 65" sets look as good, but bigger. So is the price...
  • Hopefully OLED and MicroLED and whatever other types will follow suit soon after. Perhaps the days of dulling your mind by passively gawking at pixels changing colour will finally come to an end.

    • >"Hopefully OLED and MicroLED and whatever other types will follow suit soon after. "

      Mini-LED, MicroLED, and [typically] Quantum Dot are ALL LCD technologies.

      • > Mini-LED, MicroLED, and [typically] Quantum Dot are ALL LCD technologies.

        MicroLED, at least, has no liquid crystal layer, no polarizer films, and no backlight.

        =Smidge=

        • >"MicroLED, at least, has no liquid crystal layer, no polarizer films, and no backlight.

          Sorry, even I got sucked into the ridiculous term confusion. Mini-LED is LCD, Micro-LED is not. How insane.

          • At least other technologies used with TVs like HDMI and USB don't have this nonsensical naming problem.

            Oh, hang on a minute...

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Mini-LED, MicroLED, and [typically] Quantum Dot are ALL LCD technologies.

        No, MicroLED is a competitor to OLED. It's basically OLED without the organic part, so in theory, it shouldn't have aging or burn-in issues inherent with OLED.

        You are otherwise correct in that Mini-LED and QLED are LCD based technologies. But there is such a thing as QD-OLED which is OLED technology enhanced with quantum dots. QD-MicroLED will be a thing as well .QD works by having a monochromatic LED array and having QD phosphors tha

        • >"MicroLED is a competitor to OLED. It's basically OLED without the organic part [...] You are otherwise correct in that Mini-LED and QLED are LCD based technologies."

          Sorry, even I got sucked into the ridiculous term confusion. Mini-LED is LCD, Micro-LED is not. How insane.

          >"But there is such a thing as QD-OLED which is OLED technology enhanced with quantum dots"

          I knew that part, which is why I qualified it with "[typically]", since, for years, "Quantum Dot" has been synonymous with LCD panels.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

        So correction that the backlit technologies are LCD and it's a relief that those are still being invested in because tech with burn in issues are too sucky in my book. My TV has been used extensively for about a decade and I'd hate to think how bad burn-in would be if it was OLED.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Guspaz ( 556486 )

          It means that they're investing in improving the backlight technology, but not the LCD panels themselves. You'll get better full array local dimming, but not better viewing angles, contrast ratios, pixel response times, etc. The current tradeoffs that we have between VA/IPS/TN will probably be with us until LCD panels are fully replaced by self-emissive displays.

      • >"Hopefully OLED and MicroLED and whatever other types will follow suit soon after. "

        Mini-LED, MicroLED, and [typically] Quantum Dot are ALL LCD technologies.

        No they are not. MicroLED and QDs are both self-emissive separate display technologies. You've been confused by Samsung's abusive marketing (their QDTVs do not use the development known as Quantum Dot displays, they just use it to make a better filter for their LCD).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Says the person posting on Slashdot....

    • Of course they want to flog OLED... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Monday June 19, 2023 @10:40PM (#63617100) Homepage Journal

      Of course they want to flog OLED. OLED is the poster child for the industry because it degrades and gets us back to a technology subject to burn-in. TVs are at the point where you can't get better resolution and be able to see the difference and this has the industry scared. Oh My God, what if we go back to the bad ole days of the 70's where people bought a TV and kept it for fifteen years? They might only be able to sell one TV to a person in their lifetime!

      It's not good enough that they have people disposing their phones every three years - the TVs are next on the chopping block for devices that you have to pitch. I'll never buy an OLED device, and neither should you. The whole technology is offensive.

      • Of course they want to flog OLED. OLED is the poster child for the industry because it degrades and gets us back to a technology subject to burn-in.

        Yes, that's exactly why the majority of R&D invested in OLEDs has been to prevent this situation over the past 2 decades.

        Now what do you think about the FBI destroying the WTC?

        • Yes, that's exactly why the majority of R&D invested in OLEDs has been to prevent this situation over the past 2 decades.

          The majority of research in the last two decades has been how to mask the problem, and then offering misnamed bandaids like "Pixel Refresh" which actually make the problem worse. Pixel Refresh doesn't actually refresh the pixels. It raises the voltage for individual pixels that are dimming. Customers believe it's doing some magic to undo the damage which caused the dimming, and really those pixels are just getting shocked into brightening at the expense of even more rapid wear.

          Great work on that research

      • I think you're partially correct, the display business does seem to be very trend-influenced. Remember when we all switched to wide screen, because that was better for some reason? And now we're switching back, because that's better now?

        It's not about degredation, it's about distinguishing your product. Displays are practically commodity items, so anything which sets yours apart is valuable. And once a feature catches on everyone else needs to copy it, otherwise they'll end up looking old and obsolete.

      • Unless you are determined to only use the same static images for hours a day, you're never going to get burn-in like it's the words INSERT COIN on an old arcade monitor. Instead what you get is a "dirty" look as the OLED cells wear unevenly and the software can't compensate anymore. And quite frankly, even the first gen LG OLEDs with all their early adopter issues still have superior image quality today to the 10 year old high end samsung LCD I replaced recently. Point being people will replace their TVs wh

        • Unless you are determined to only use the same static images for hours a day, you're never going to get burn-in like it's the words INSERT COIN on an old arcade monitor.

          Or like it's the logo of CNN burned in on displays in restaurants, or the logo of FOX News Channel and the ghostly outline of a talking head and lower third burned in on displays in politically conservative households like that of a relative.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by 0xG ( 712423 )

        We can always spring 3D or curved screens on them again. They'll never rememner...

      • TVs are at the point where you can't get better resolution and be able to see the difference.

        utterly pedestrian comment.

        I'll never buy an OLED device, and neither should you. The whole technology is offensive.

        OLED panels may degrade the fastest, but like other display tech (LCD, plasma), it's much, much more likely something else will fail (psu, board, backlight) before the panel reaches its half-life.

        OLED offers a huge leap in image quality, and only the largest ones are expensive ( $3k+). well worth the price of admission for those with the sense to appreciate it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ormy ( 1430821 )

        Preface: I'm very aware of planned obsolescence being used to increase profits at the cost of sustainability/environment all across the electronics industry, automotive, and various other areas, and I am as much against it as anyone.

        Having said that, sorry but you're simply wrong in this case. I'm not saying the corporations within the TV industry are somehow more ethical than in other industries or 'above' disgusting practices like planned obsolescence. I am saying OLED technology in general is not an ex

  • Surprise: I Only will buy IPS Monitors (Score:3)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Monday June 19, 2023 @06:04PM (#63616626) Homepage
    For color correction, CAD, Design, and video editing, only IPS will do. Also, for text, the 178degree viewing angle is about as good as it can be.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      You mean you have only bought IPS monitors.

      What can entice you to buy a new IPS monitor in the future?

      HDR doesn't work well on IPS monitors. High refresh doesn't make sense because OLED will have better response. How can you make IPS monitors better than already is?

    • For color correction, CAD, Design, and video editing, only IPS will do.

      That's ignorance talking. As it stands IPS LCDs fail to display the Rec-2020 gamut fully. The best displays on the market for video editing and colour grading are OLED reference display, but they start at an eye-watering cost. It's utterly stupid to assume any technology will remain a king in the face of continuing R&D in alternatives.

      As for CAD, not sure what you're talking about. I guarantee you that 99% of CAD is done on any fucking monitor the person is put in front of because CAD does not require a

  • Don't Want an Image-Burn Monitor (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Monday June 19, 2023 @06:05PM (#63616632) Homepage
    Paying money for a monitor you have to baby though its whole life--is not my idea of fun.
    • Can't have a money making product if it lasts forever! Planned obsolescence built right into the tech.
    • Yeah, but replacing your monitor due to image burn every few years *is* the monitor industry's idea of fun!

      The only way to stop planned obsolescence is by banning it. Europe did it. It's why a printer over there lasts 3-5 times as long as the same model sold in the US.

      • No they don't. Europe is not some magical utopia, they're just corrupt in a different way. Instead in the EU everyone has to deal with a constantly backsliding quality of life as every single thing our parents took for granted turns to complete shit due to outrageously idiotic "environmental" regulations that cause everyone to waste several times more resources to accomplish anything. From toilets you need to flush three times to laundry machines that take literally an entire day for a load half the size of

    • Yes, thus there is desire for research and development to improve that. OLED is expensive and has burn in issues, so it needs research and development.

      The LCD part of an LCD/LED/mini led is already developed, so it can continue to be made at current state of the art without new invention required. Alternatives are attractive if they can be cheap and durable because the backlight based already has some fundamental limitations that would be nice to supersede, even if today the tradeoffs favor using LCD

    • Paying money for a monitor you have to baby though its whole life--is not my idea of fun.

      The early 00s are calling and want their complaints back. Out of the technologies listed in TFS only 1 of the three suffer from burn-in. And the one which suffers from burn-in has had this effect massively reduced over the years thanks to R&D into this issue.

      You're right, you don't want to deal with burn-in. The industry is working to make sure you won't have to.

    • It's fine for a TV since there aren't static images and screen savers kick in pretty quickly.

      It is probably not ideal for a computer monitor since task bars and other images tend to be static for long periods of time while in use.

  • "LED" (Score:3)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday June 19, 2023 @06:48PM (#63616708)

    >"According to an industry insider, LCD TVs won't see any further development because all new R&D money is being spent on self-emissive displays"

    Great- does that mean we can finally stop seeing the mislabeling of LCD TV's as "LED"?

    • Not really. We're actually adding to the issue thanks to Samsung's QD LCDs not actually being Quantum Dot displays talked about in TFS. Soon you won't know whether LED means the display tech or the backlight, as well as not knowing whether QD means the display tech or the colour filter.

      • Presumably that's why they're calling them micro-LED displays. Gotta make sure the name is distinctive - but not so distinctive that less informed customers won't drop a similar chunk of cash on mini-LED (backlit LCD) displays by mistake and feel the need to upgrade soon.

  • This was a problem that pretty much went away tward the end of CRT color televisions, only to come back with plasma TV sets. Then it went away again with LCD televisions only to come back with OLED screens.
    • By the end of CRTs reign image burn in was pretty much non-existant, unless you purposely abused the hell out of it by leaving a static image on it 24/7 for a decade assuming it would run that long. It was a big problem with earlier CRTs, especially monochrome. Plasma would have probably had similar improvements over time if it wasn't killed off. Plasma was essentially in individual mini crt behind each pixel. But because of the design, plasma would probably have never slimmed down as much as LCD did. LCD n

      • By the end of CRTs reign image burn in was pretty much non-existant, unless you purposely abused the hell out of it by leaving a static image on it 24/7 for a decade assuming it would run that long.

        Picked up a rear projection HDTV produced in the early 2000s. It was not abused yet burn in from station logos and letterboxing were very pronounced by the time it was replaced.

        • Large screen, 3 small CRT sources each running at higher intensity than the usual 3-gun direct view tube. Burn-in is not surprising. The typical fate of those cabinet projection TVs here by 2010, was to be left in a ditch at the side of a rural road.
          • I've always figured that they were left there because they were big, bulky, and very outdated looking. Sometimes the garbage man won't even take it, and it becomes smashed up and covered in graffiti by bored teenagers.
          • The last of those I saw sitting on the curb here in the neighborhood was just a few years ago, it sat for a month till someone did something with it, though it only took a couple weeks for the Florida rains to make the particleboard cabinet completely disintegrate
        • Projection CRT tubes are driven hard to get all that light output. Burn in was always a real issue with those. They're essentially monochrome tubes with no shadow mask. Theres a seprate tube for each RGB color. I don't remember if those tubes had a single different color phosphor in each one, or if they were just black and white tubes with a color filter over them. I would imagine the former would be the cheaper way to go since you wouldn't have to 3 tube production lines to simultaniously produce CRTs of d
      • Here is a really nasty example of an arcade monitor with burn in: https://substackcdn.com/image/... [substackcdn.com] Of course this was in an arcade that likely never switched off their games and kept them running for years, perhaps decades on end. If you were just playing Nintendo on a regular modern TV set you would never encounter this problem.
  • I thought OLED was the further development. I guess ill just keep my crt since it keeps on trucking after 15 years

  • as well as on backlight technology like Mini-LED

    So after saying LCDs are seeing no further development, they say they are seeing new development.

    The commentary seems to be narrowly focused on the LCD layer not seeing new R&D, not "LCD TVs" as a whole. Which should come as no surprise, we have cheap, high refresh, large size, high density LCD today. It's pretty much complete, as far as we can imagine taking the approach.

    That doesn't mean they are going to stop manufacturing them, just that we have as much as we can get technology wise. This might c

  • Here in the UK the newest (2023) 55" TV from LG will cost you 600 GBP for the LCD version [johnlewis.com] and 1700 GBP for the OLED version [johnlewis.com].

    I think OLED is great, but persuading the other half to spend 2.8x more money on OLED (when she thinks that the LCD screen is good enough) is an extremely tough sell.

    • Nobody said otherwise. They're not talking about ending LCD production, just R&D. At this point LCD screens are the budget models. There's just not enough profit available to justify improving the technology further - nobody is going to pay a substantial premium for a cutting-edge LCD screen that's better than the current best availble. Not when OLED, etc. prices are falling fast.

      Keep in mind that the technology developed in the lab today is likely to take 5-15 years to reach store shelves. So befo

  • Someone I know saw my 55" LCD TV I use as a computer monitor and though that was a good idea. They brought 55" TV and were really happy with the result since I had warned them about the things to watch out for when choosing a TV as computer monitor. Some time later they mentioned image burn in. At that point I though "Ah crap, I forget to warn them not to buy an OLED TV".

    OLEDs are a very limited application technology, either for throw away short life products or occasionally used set up and status di

    • Yeah, I think top-of-the-line LCDs have legitimately reached the point of being good enough. OLED and uLED still have lots of room to improve, and will hopefully eventually overcome their weaknesses eventually, and I can totally understand why manufacturers would want to focus research dollars on doing that instead of trying to improve premium LCD TVs that are having an increasingly difficult time demanding premium prices.

      Especially when you figure it will take many years for the research dollars spent tod

Slashdot Top Deals

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Close