Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television

TCL Accused of Selling Quantum Dot TVs Without Actual Quantum Dots (arstechnica.com) 48

Posted by BeauHD from the not-a-good-look dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica, written by Scharon Harding: TCL has come under scrutiny this month after testing that claimed to examine three TCL TVs marketed as quantum dot TVs reportedly showed no trace of quantum dots. [...] Earlier this month, South Korean IT news publication ETNews published a report on testing that seemingly showed three TCL quantum dot TVs, marketed as QD TVs, as not having quantum dots present. Hansol Chemical, a Seoul-headquartered chemicals company, commissioned the testing. SGS, a Geneva-headquartered testing and certification company, and Intertek, a London-headquartered testing and certification company, performed the tests. The models examined were TCL's C755, said to be a quantum dot Mini LED TV, the C655, a purported quantum dot LED (QLED) TV, and the C655 Pro, another QLED. None of those models are sold in the US, but TCL sells various Mini LED and LED TVs in the US that claim to use quantum dots. According to a Google translation, ETNews reported: "According to industry sources on the 5th, the results of tests commissioned by Hansol Chemical to global testing and certification agencies SGS and Intertek showed that indium... and cadmium... were not detected in three TCL QD TV models. Indium and cadmium are essential materials that cannot be omitted in QD implementation." The testing was supposed to detect cadmium if present at a minimum concentration of 0.5 mg per 1 kg, while indium was tested at a minimum detection standard of 2 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg, depending on the testing lab. [...]

In response to the results from SGS and Intertek, a TCL representative told ETNews and The Korea Times that TCL is "manufacturing TV sets with QD films supplied by three companies" and that "the amount of quantum dots... in the film may vary depending on the supplier, but it is certain that cadmium is included." TCL also published testing results on May 10 commissioned by Guangdong Region Advanced Materials, one of TCL's quantum dot film suppliers. Interestingly, SGS, one of the companies that found that TCL's TVs lacked quantum dots, performed the tests. This time, SGS detected the presence of cadmium in the TV films at a concentration of 4 mg/kg (an image of the results can be seen via ETNews here). TCL also said that it "confirmed the fluorescent characteristics of QD," per Google's translation, and provided a spectrogram purportedly depicting the presence of quantum dots in its TVs' quantum dot films. [...]

TCL obviously has reason to try to push results that show the presence of cadmium. However, some analysts and publications have pointed out that Hansol could have reason to push results claiming the opposite. As mentioned above, Hansol is in the chemical manufacturing and distribution business. It notably does not sell to TCL but does have a customer in TCL rival Samsung. Taking a step back further, Hansol is headquartered in Seoul and is considered a chaebol. TV giants Samsung and LG are also chaebols, and the South Korean government has reported interest in Samsung and LG continuing to be the world's biggest TV companies—titles that are increasingly challenged by Chinese brands. It has previously been reported that the South Korean government urged Samsung and LG to meet with each other to help ensure their leadership. The talks resulted in a partnership between the two companies reportedly centered on counteracting high prices that Samsung was facing for TV components sold by Chinese companies. With this background in mind, Hansol could be viewed as a biased party when it sought testing for TCL quantum dot TVs. "I'm really puzzled by Hansol's results," said Eric Virey, principal displays analyst at Yole Intelligence. "I have a very hard time believing that TCL would go through the troubles of making ... 'fake' QD films without QDs: this would cost almost as much as making a real QD films but without the performance benefits."

Ars Technica concludes: "As previously stated, it's possible that TCL is indeed using quantum dots but is using them in a small amount alongside phosphor. If true, the performance may not be as high as it would be with other designs, but it would also mean that TCL's quantum dot TVs aren't bogus. As it stands, the situation could benefit from more, preferably third-party, testing..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TCL Accused of Selling Quantum Dot TVs Without Actual Quantum Dots More

TCL Accused of Selling Quantum Dot TVs Without Actual Quantum Dots

Comments Filter:

  • Well duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2024 @04:05PM (#64794059)
    Obviously as soon as you measure it the quantum state collapses. It was there before (or at least simultaneously existing, not existing, and only sort of existing like a sibling I have) but actually observing it caused it to settle into a state where it doesn't exist. This is a common problem with quantum. Now they'll need to hire a quantum mechanic to put the super back in their position.
    • ..made me wonder if 'Quantum' dots actually have anything to do with quantum physics (or if it's more a marketing thing, like a "turbo" EV [porsche.com])

      Well what do you know, quantum dots actually rely on quantum physics:

      Unlike simple atomic structures, a quantum dot structure has the unusual property that energy levels are strongly dependent on the structure's size. For example, CdSe quantum dot light emission can be tuned from red (5 nm diameter) to the violet region (1.5 nm dot). The physical reason for QD colorati

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Alinabi ( 464689 )
        So do regular LEDs: light is emitted when electrons transition from the conduction band back to a bound state in the valence band, a purely quantum mechanical effect.

    • Obviously as soon as you measure it the quantum state collapses. It was there before (or at least simultaneously existing, not existing, and only sort of existing like a sibling I have) but actually observing it caused it to settle into a state where it doesn't exist. This is a common problem with quantum. Now they'll need to hire a quantum mechanic to put the super back in their position.

      Oh boy, my cat ate the TV.

      • To watch TV now you have to ask a Haitian to open their mouth ;-)

      • Obviously as soon as you measure it the quantum state collapses. It was there before (or at least simultaneously existing, not existing, and only sort of existing like a sibling I have) but actually observing it caused it to settle into a state where it doesn't exist. This is a common problem with quantum. Now they'll need to hire a quantum mechanic to put the super back in their position.

        Oh boy, my cat ate the TV.

        This message, brought to you by Schrödinger's cat food.

        (NOTE: not available in all states.)

    • Would you like to buy some SchrodingerCoin?

      > Now they'll need to hire a quantum mechanic to put the super back in their position.

      But there's a shortage of flux capacitor replacements.

    • Now they'll need to hire a quantum mechanic to put the super back in their position.

      Well, that's quite a Quantum Leap.

    • Obviously as soon as you measure it the quantum state collapses. It was there before (or at least simultaneously existing, not existing, and only sort of existing like a sibling I have) but actually observing it caused it to settle into a state where it doesn't exist. This is a common problem with quantum. Now they'll need to hire a quantum mechanic to put the super back in their position.

      Anyone remember what the fuck we make TVs for again?

      I sure do miss the days when my human eyes were the judge of a product built for human eyes. Apparently I’m gonna need a fucking mass spectrometer, an infrared camera, and a lawyer to buy my next one.

    • I was wondering about this same thing. I suppose that it's possible that in another universe, they ARE there.

  • why? it's a summary.

  • SGS, a Geneva-headquartered testing and certification company, and Intertek, a London-headquartered testing and certification company, performed the tests.

    and

    Hansol could be viewed as a biased party when it sought testing for TCL quantum dot TVs.

    I don't know about SGS, but Intertek is a very high profile certification company whose name appears on the labels of lots of electrical and electronics goods. I find it hard to believe that they'd be involved in any biased - or even questionable - testing activities.

    Hansol may have a 'desired result', but I can't see well-known certification labs taking the risk of providing one that wasn't both legitimate and replicable by third parties.

    • I don't know about SGS, but Intertek is a very high profile certification company

      I can say the complementary: I don't know for Intertek, but SGS is a very high profile certification company. They are slightly older and twice as big as Intertek (100,000 employees and provide ISO certifications to big corporates).

      Hansol may have a 'desired result', but I can't see well-known certification labs taking the risk of providing one that wasn't both legitimate and replicable by third parties.

      I think Hansol had all the means to demonstrate there was no quantum dots in the competitor product so they sent it not to one but two world class certification companies to have independent evidence beyond doubt. Agree that obviously those labs wouldn't take a risk since their e

      • Thanks for the info. If TCL is in fact making TVs without Quantum Dots that are competitive with TVs that do have them, I would have thought they'd be tooting their own horn about not needing them, rather than pretending that they use them. Unless, of course, the QD units command enough of a price premium that it's worth lying for.

  • To date, I find that OLED is pretty much the best out there for TVs....

    I loved my old Plasma due to the blacks it had....the OLED is the closest I've found to my old Plasma.....

    I don't see getting any other type tv any time soon....only OLEDs in my house.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by vivian ( 156520 )

      If it's not actually possible to just look at the picture quality and determine if the TV is using quantum dots or not, you really have to question the benefit of Quantum dots in the first place.

      I don't give a damn if the TV runs on LED, LCD, plasma, quantum dots or unicorn farts and fairy dust - at the end of the day, it's the picture quality (contrast,resolution, color space) and power efficiency that is important, not how the image is generated.

  • well the eula says you can't sue us and we can DMCA bad reviews if we want.

  • Imma gonna ask (Score:4, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Tuesday September 17, 2024 @04:33PM (#64794179)

    If you can't tell if a display is using Quantum Dot technology without actually performing complex atomic/mineral presence tests on the films used, is the technology actually doing anything useful? I mean, if it is so great, wouldn't a trained eye be able to tell immediately between a QD and non QD display? Or at least an observational measurement from some device just looking at a standardized image would tell, right?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

      If you can't tell if a display is using Quantum Dot technology without actually performing complex atomic/mineral presence tests on the films used, is the technology actually doing anything useful? I mean, if it is so great, wouldn't a trained eye be able to tell immediately between a QD and non QD display? Or at least an observational measurement from some device just looking at a standardized image would tell, right?

      Nah, you see, the problem is they're plugged into "dirty power", which negates those Qs just like opening a box to reveal a dead cat does. Just install this Monster power bar and ALL your LEDs will be QLEDs in no time, without even any dead cats to deal with!

    • And therein lies the magic (otherwise known as the BS that gets served up in alphabet soup when trying to figure out TV features). It's today's version of measuring a CRT diagonally and claiming vertical height. Look at the screen playing something. If you like it, buy it. QLED, QD, OLED, HDMI, HD, 4K, ULED, SUHD, HDR, CCFL, LCD, QNED, AMOLED, AOI, DLP, FOV, HDR, HDTV, HUD, MLED, PDP, PPI, RGB, RLCD, TFT, VESA, WOLED be damned. (these are only the ones I can think of off the top of my head ... they're used

      • You can't look at the screen playing something. Display models are all set to a "retail" mode where they make one or two particular images/scenes look great but those aren't representative of real content and wont' be the settings you use when you purchase the TV.

        The word for that used to be "fraud" but now I guess it's "marketing."

        • I can look at 20 screens and 18 of them look like dogshit and two look like they have decent contrast, gamut, and aren't garishly oversaturated.

          What does that tell me in your model?

          • ...that you think dogshit is a huge black rectangle?

          • What does that tell me in your model?

            It tells you the settings are different and that you are a sucker for marketing tricks. I think you failed to understand the parent's point.

      • And therein lies the magic (otherwise known as the BS that gets served up in alphabet soup when trying to figure out TV features).

        Not at all. QD displays have specific visual traits. It's not bullshit in the slightest. If you want better colour reproduction than classic LCDs, but don't have a need for the blacks of an OLED while at the same time being concerned about burn-in then QD displays are your thing.

        The OP is on point. I read the summary and wondered WTF they were on about, TCL screens actually measure generally quite well - typically better than LCD counterparts and trade blows with the other manufacturer listed: Samsung. This

    • If you can't tell if a display is using Quantum Dot technology without actually performing complex atomic/mineral presence tests on the films used, is the technology actually doing anything useful? I mean, if it is so great, wouldn't a trained eye be able to tell immediately between a QD and non QD display? Or at least an observational measurement from some device just looking at a standardized image would tell, right?

      Not just a trained eye ... the sole ultimate test is for the untrained eye, the eye of most typical consumers. If they can't tell, then the difference, real or faked, literally means nothing to them.

  • I can imagine their new defense a week from now: we never said these TVs had quantum dots. The fact that our customers interpreted our marketing term "QD" as meaning Quantum Dots is not the fault of TCL.
  • I went to a KFC once and they had no chicken. I assume this is like that

  • I just painstakingly got rid of the last of my NiCads.

    Tell me why I'd want cadmium in the house again?

    • Tell me why I'd want cadmium in the house again?

      Because you're an intelligent person who understands that cadmium is a concern for disposable waste products and not an issue of being used in consumer electronics in the house?

      Please please tell me I'm wrong and that you're not intelligent at all.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jpatters ( 883 )

      Never mind the Americium in the smoke detector.

  • Getting this worked up over a marketing claim, would have been the equivalent of dozens of auto mechanics protesting in front of the Government, arguing that the “turbo” button did NOT reflect the appropriate hardware inside any PC with it.

    Incredible how not one mechanic gave a shit. Ever. Says a lot about todays litigators and their “victims”.

    • Maybe because in the case of computers, even the dumbest user wouldn't mistake that setting/switch for something involving an internal combustion engine, let alone something that compresses air into one.

      Besides, many computers have at least one centrifugal fan in them... that's kinda-sorta like an electric turbocharger, if you squint at it just right, and in many cases they spool-up as system load increases. :-)

      • Maybe because in the case of computers, even the dumbest user wouldn't mistake that setting/switch for something involving an internal combustion engine, let alone something that compresses air into one.

        Be careful. We have a LOT of simple computer users now. Entire generations who used an App Store to install software who don’t know any other way. Wouldn’t know how to drive without GPS. Barely know how to function when the internet is offline to them. Still don’t know the value of a strong password, and get hacked using one password for everything. Besides, it’s not the users I worry about. It’s the fucking idiotic lawsuits that abuse stupidity as some kind of legitimat

  • If they are quantum dots, can you even observe them? Or do the become regular dots when observed?

  • may be considered simultaneously both on and off.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close