Every Monitor Sucks

[euskalzabe]

Wait wait wait… if this thing exists, with 4K 120Hz, what the hell are we all waiting for over in the thread about the 43” Asuses and the upcoming 43” Acer?! Why do those 3 displays matter at all is this thing exists?! I don’t think I’ve been more confused in a good few months…

Well, you can always buy the WM right now, so... problem solved? It's not like the Asus or Acer are going to be any better in the IQ department (most of the time these monitors use the same or very similar panels... in this case, it'll have been a year+ of time difference, so they're bound to not be the same). That said, Asus/Acer could release 4k/120 panels right now, but they keep focusing on those releases with some form of FALD/HDR and thus it's taken forever with multiple delays. Remember when the ROG Swift with hundreds of FALD zones was announced VS released? All due to FALD issues.

 

[pippenainteasy]

Wait wait wait… if this thing exists, with 4K 120Hz, what the hell are we all waiting for over in the thread about the 43” Asuses and the upcoming 43” Acer?! Why do those 3 displays matter at all is this thing exists?! I don’t think I’ve been more confused in a good few months…

It's not 120hz, it's technically 98hz just like the Acer Predator or Asus ROG "120hz" panels as that's all DP 1.4 really supports at 4:4:4, but regardless, it doesn't have freesync/VRR which I think is the minimum for alot of people to jump ship, whereas those displays have gsync.

 

[silk186]

heh. The cynic in new has been thinking about this for a while. Used to be you’d but a TV and it would last you “forever” - only reason to get a new one was for bigger, or if the old one broke when you threw your controller at it.

After the introduction of “smart” TVs this started to change. I’d say it started when LCD/Plasma were introduced but a lot of those, plasmas especially, had a long useful life. I had an early “smart” 1080p Panasonic plasma that I used for a decade, because it had excellent picture and I didn’t care about the other smart nonsense.

but it seems since we started seeing “smart” TVs, there had always been a “next year” feature that the manufacturers push(first it was 1080i to 1080p, then “effective” refresh rates, 3D, 4K, 4K hdr, local dimming, actual refresh rates, and now VRR). we get slightly better LCDs every year, slightly more OLEDs every year, and the transition is stretched out for a decade or more.

TVs are a little too big to be disposable electronics but the manufacturers seem to think otherwise. It bugs me.

I've only upgraded for those reasons. I'm about to go for 42" 1080p to 55" 4k + Xiaomi 4k box.

 

[euskalzabe]

Further proof of the feasibility of a 30" 4K60 OLED panel that many of us would pay good money for:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1508...lable-30inch-4kp60-oled-screen-100-grams-5-mm

Did this need to be flexible/rollable? NO.
Could that be useful for the future? Yes, sure.
Would most of us prefer for a non-flexible version of this panel to be released today? HELL YEAH.

Now someone tell me manufacturers are not releasing smaller, monitor sized OLEDs because [insert nonsensical argument here]. It's more than doable. They just won't do it because shenanigans, as usual.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Further proof of the feasibility of a 30" 4K60 OLED panel that many of us would pay good money for:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1508...lable-30inch-4kp60-oled-screen-100-grams-5-mm

Did this need to be flexible/rollable? NO.
Could that be useful for the future? Yes, sure.
Would most of us prefer for a non-flexible version of this panel to be released today? HELL YEAH.

Now someone tell me manufacturers are not releasing smaller, monitor sized OLEDs because [insert nonsensical argument here]. It's more than doable. They just won't do it because shenanigans, as usual.

Dell UP3017Q FWW87 30" Screen OLED Monitor https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DHS2Z72/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_inCYDb1787SPX

Dell has been stuck in QC development hell. But even after that they are projecting a $3k+ sales cost. Which is out of 99.9% of regular consumers hands. I would surmise that developing smaller OLED panels and electronics along side the QC necessary is still incredibly prohibitively expensive.

The bottom line is that manufacturers only care about ROI. If it’s there they will sell literally anything. The idea that it’s some sort of conspiracy to hamstring tech is ridiculous.

 

[euskalzabe]

I would surmise that developing smaller OLED panels and electronics along side the QC necessary is still incredibly prohibitively expensive.

The Samsung A30 with an FHD+ AMOLED panel begs to differ at $200. You can do that at 6", you can do FHD OLED at 30". Do people actually believe phone displays are somehow entirely different from bigger displays??? Hint: a display is a display is a display.


QHD is not a big jump from FHD. 4K at 30", that's quadruple the resolution, I can see more complication there, but the products already in the market that have been mentioned by myself and others prove this is no longer the case. No, it seems that manufacturers could release this today if they really wanted, but are waiting for something specific. I don't think ROI is it, if something has become clear in the past decade, is that people will spend tons of money on what they want to buy ($1000+ phones, GPUs and CPUs anyone?).

 

[UnknownSouljer]

The Samsung A30 with an FHD+ AMOLED panel begs to differ at $200. You can do that at 6", you can do FHD OLED at 30".

That is that and this is this.

Do people actually believe phone displays are somehow entirely different from bigger displays??? Hint: a display is a display is a display.

Not at all, but "people" constantly overlook how difficult their armchair requests are. Apple categorically hates Samsung and is doing everything in their power to give them less money and use other manufacturers for things. LG, their other major display partner has (as we've been discussing) had enormous problems with the production of OLED displays, enough so that even though Apple would gladly give them all their OLED for iPhone business, they cannot accept it because they're unable to have production and QC meet the level of production necessary for Apple.

The point? Even in cellphone displays that you think are so willy nilly easy to come by that they drop out of the sky there are still major issues with manufacturing and cost. LG the same manufacturer that everyone is buying OLED TV's from is having problems making phone displays. Huh, who'd of thunk it? Maybe it's not as straightforward as the armchair engineering would suggest. And if you don't think LG wouldn't GLADLY take all of Apple's money from Samsung, their competitor, then you're delusional.

QHD is not a big jump from FHD. 4K at 30", that's quadruple the resolution, I can see more complication there, but the products already in the market that have been mentioned by myself and others prove this is no longer the case. No, it seems that manufacturers could release this today if they really wanted, but are waiting for something specific. I don't think ROI is it, if something has become clear in the past decade, is that people will spend tons of money on what they want to buy ($1000+ phones, GPUs and CPUs anyone?).

Occam's Razor. Like I noted above there is really only two possible explanations for this: 1) Cost (which factors into ROI) and 2) Manufacturing (and issues thereof).
You don't think that if there was a market they'd be rushing in to meet it? To be first to market and corner it yourself? If it's easy and will just make you money like gangbusters as a business there is no way you're not going to take it. Business is war. If you can win and squeeze your competitors out, and dare I say: be monopolistic, you do it at every turn you can. You're an absolute idiot if you don't.

One of the issues here is that you nonchalantly believe that people have $1k to spend on monitors when most people, even PC master race people on average are spending around $350 on a monitor. They aren't likely to spend more than $1k on an entire computer or computer build. Most people when PC master race gaming are using 1060's and 1080p monitors. They are absolutely categorically not using $2000 displays with $1000 video cards and $500 CPUs. You can verify all of this simply by looking at Steam Stats.

If people did that kind of hardware then game devs would be making games designed for that level of hardware instead of what they do which is lowest common denominator. The thing is you're so blind to what you want that you have very skewed perspective of reality. When things are not the way you perceive it at all, that is unless you perceive things differently than what you're saying. Do people buy $1000 video cards? Yes, obviously, that's why they exist. But no statistic will ever show you that a 2080ti is even close to double digits in terms of percent of market share. You won't find that ever. Or for $1000 CPUs. Or $1000 phones even. The most successful phones for Apple have been the XR and 11 (non-pro). Also statistically people are keeping their phones longer now, 3 and 4 years to avoiding spending a huge amount of money on a phone. All of this evidence is counter to your anecdotal evidence.

So no, people aren't buying $1000, $2000, or $3000 monitors (as noted in the steam stats, only 1.74% are even using 4k monitors... meaning OLED 4k monitors would be fighting for <2% of the display market) or even TVS that cost that amount for that matter except for a very small percent at the top of the market. They are the EXCEPTION not the RULE. Most people are buying $400, 55" TVs, which is why LG, TCL, and Vizio are targeting that price bracket.

So who are they going to sell a niche, hyper-expensive, 4k OLED display to?


EDITs: For grammar, although I'm sure I missed a bunch of garbage.

 

[Deleted member 89018]

Could just be a matter of economy of scale, too. More people buy TVs than monitors, and more cell phones than TVs.

Profit margin might just not be high enough for them to bother with 27-32” OLED at any scale where it would be rationally priced.

(although I don’t see how it would be more expensive / harder than trying to fit a big FALD array into a screen of that size).

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Could just be a matter of economy of scale, too. More people buy TVs than monitors, and more cell phones than TVs.

Profit margin might just not be high enough for them to bother with 27-32” OLED at any scale where it would be rationally priced.

(although I don’t see how it would be more expensive / harder than trying to fit a big FALD array into a screen of that size).

ding ding.

Right now there is only one "widely" available PC display with fald, it's still the Acer X27. And that guy costs $2000. And no one is buying it. Because no one can afford it.
Granted it's not a perfect display (the FALD zones create haloing and panel uniformity isn't so great) but it's the closest thing we have to perfect and it's totally out of the hands of 99.99% of buyers.

A $3k OLED monitor (from Dell) would likely move a few review units and then a few more to the people who want to have insane luxury and then probably not sell any more past that. I doubt it would even make a dent in the professional market. It's still not worth the fab space. When it's possible to make a 30" 4k OLED display en mass for $1k it'll happen. But until then the break even point is too far out. As I noted though, at $1k the display would still only be for about 1% of the market, but it would be worth it to do. Right now, not so much.

 

[l88bastard]

ding ding.

Right now there is only one "widely" available PC display with fald, it's still the Acer X27. And that guy costs $2000. And no one is buying it. Because no one can afford it.
Granted it's not a perfect display (the FALD zones create haloing and panel uniformity isn't so great) but it's the closest thing we have to perfect and it's totally out of the hands of 99.99% of buyers.

A $3k OLED monitor (from Dell) would likely move a few review units and then a few more to the people who want to have insane luxury and then probably not sell any more past that. I doubt it would even make a dent in the professional market. It's still not worth the fab space. When it's possible to make a 30" 4k OLED display en mass for $1k it'll happen. But until then the break even point is too far out. As I noted though, at $1k the display would still only be for about 1% of the market, but it would be worth it to do. Right now, not so much.

Within the next 5 years OLED is going to be cheaper than toilet paper. Look at all the factories spooling up to mass produce it.....the market is going to be so flooded with cheap Chinese/Taiwanese/Sudanese/Miamiese Oled Clones that it will not make any financial sense for companies to use trash LCD ever again!

Personally, I welcome our OLED toilet paper overlords!

 

[euskalzabe]

I'll be brief, because I want to play some Crash Bandicoot before going to bed. Issue #1:

LG the same manufacturer that everyone is buying OLED TV's from is having problems making phone displays. Huh, who'd of thunk it? Maybe it's not as straightforward as the armchair engineering would suggest. And if you don't think LG wouldn't GLADLY take all of Apple's money from Samsung, their competitor, then you're delusional.

Old news pal. You're conflating issues. LG invested in big panel production. Samsung in small panel production. LG doesn't have the capacity - not ability - to produce as many OLEDs as Apple needs at that density. That says nothing about the feasibility of said technology, it says a lot of what type of panel do you concentrate your fabs on. Yes, I get they're not exactly the same - LG uses RGBW while many Samsung panels tend to use pentile arrangements. Obviously they're not the same. But it can be done, and it's not as complicated as you're making it seem (I propose a very simple solution in my last response in this comment, check my answer to deruberhanyok and let me know if you still think this is so impossible). Onto issue número 2:

One of the issues here is that you nonchalantly believe that people have $1k to spend on monitors when most people, even PC master race people on average are spending around $350 on a monitor. They aren't likely to spend more than $1k on an entire computer or computer build. Most people when PC master race gaming are using 1060's and 1080p monitors. They are absolutely categorically not using $2000 displays with $1000 video cards and $500 CPUs. You can verify all of this simply by looking at Steam Stats.

You don't have to sell millions to create a strong market position. Apple sells a fraction of the phones in the business, and makes a crap ton of money. Sell more at a lower price, or sell less at a higher price. So no, most of us aren't buying $1000 panels, but plenty of people are out there, enough to create a healthy business margin. The millions of people who spend $800+ on a Nvidia RTXwhatever will easily buy a $1000 OLED monitor if you make it available to them, because they buy the best with little concern for price. That won't make it mass market, but it will be a healthy business proposition. Nvidia's Titan cards certainly aren't lacking for customers, nor are Intel's i9 CPUs, or AMD's threadrippers. I don't see why any of those enthusiasts, while not being mass market, would not be able to sustain a smaller market of high-end sisplays (hint: they already do, with crappy LCD "high-quality" garbage displays). Issue número 2:

Also statistically people are keeping their phones longer now, 3 and 4 years to avoiding spending a huge amount of money on a phone. All of this evidence is counter to your anecdotal evidence.

Yes, proving my point. People are statistically keeping their phones longer because they're spending way more money on them. And as I said, you don't need a giant consumer base to make an expensive OLED tier feasible. That runs in the market for 5 years, then eventually new tiers trickle down for everyone. Happened with CRTs, happened with LCDs... for some reason you think it impossible? I'm not saying it will happen, I'm saying it's not as out of the question as you're making it seem. Issue 3:

So who are they going to sell a niche, hyper-expensive, 4k OLED display to?

Judging from $1000 smartphone, GPU, CPU or even frigging smartwatch buyers, plenty of people. And also look at what I mention in the next comment:

Could just be a matter of economy of scale, too. More people buy TVs than monitors, and more cell phones than TVs.
Profit margin might just not be high enough for them to bother with 27-32” OLED at any scale where it would be rationally priced. (although I don’t see how it would be more expensive / harder than trying to fit a big FALD array into a screen of that size).

Yes, of course. This is in part the issue. However, consider this: 4K is 4x 1080p. Take that 55" 4K panel and split it in 4. A 55" OLED TV runs for $1500. Divide by 4, OK, 360, let's round to $400 for packaging/overhead/transportation. Gimme that $400 27" 1080p OLED panel immediately, I'll gladly buy it right here right now, even give LG $100 extra for their trouble. Because contrast and latency are miles away more important than a few extra pixels. LG gets to produce the exact same thing, cut it in 4, keep the same manufacturing-cost-to-selling-price ratio or even better if I give them that extra $100. Everyone's a winner. Hell, at that price, I'll buy a new one every 2 years if burn-in turns out to be an issue. Worth the price for perfect image contrast with 0 latency.

Meanwhile, for $400, we can buy garbage. That's what we're offered, when we could be offered $400 OLEDs. This is what I mean. This is what I'm talking about. This is what UnknownSouljer seems to refuse to understand. This is not new technology. Not new manufacturing. It's what already exists, sold in a different form factor. It doesn't take $1500 extra to cut a preexisting panel in 4. Does anyone actually think people wouldn't buy a 27" 1080p OLED? Then those people are crazy ignorant. These forums are full of people obsessed with resolution and high refresh rate. As UnknownSouljer has already pointed out, that's not the majority of the consumer base. They don't care about specs, and are certainly price sensitive. An ignorant consumer sees that smaller 27" OLED, sees the incredible picture quality, and they won't care it's not QHD, they'll happily justify a bit more at $400 or even $500 for that perfect contrasty image. Not only that, again as UnknownSouljer pointed out, we know from Steam hardware survey that 1080p is by far the most common resolution, so it's not like that's going to be a sticking point when you see perfect OLED blacks - which, actually improves perceived resolution unlike garbage LCD technology.

Anyone tell me again why it's impossible to have an affordable OLED monitor right now, today? Cos I really don't see any good reason why.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Anyone tell me again why it's impossible to have an affordable OLED monitor right now, today? Cos I really don't see any good reason why.

I just did. You're just not interested in the answer.

If you believe that this is solvable now, you should enter the market and go and make a killing. Because not even Dell has been able to do this and they've consistently shown they're willing to take risks with putting out monitors ahead of market curve and they still haven't done this (eg: 5k display, 8k display, etc). Neither have any of the Korean no-name brands.
So there is a nice big fat portion of the market for you to jump into because you understand the market better than anyone else, including the financial and production aspects of it and you can make it happen where other people clearly have not. Use the economies of scale, mass produce and make millions.

 

[euskalzabe]

I just did. You're just not interested in the answer.

I read your answer, I disagree, which is very different from me brushing it off. And I gave you specifics about why I disagree.

You can choose to be dismissive in the face of a simple difference of opinion, but I just demonstrated how you can make a 27" FHD panel for $400 right now, with the same manufacturing. I get the points you make - and I disagree - but I don't see you explaining why it's apparently implausible to cut a 55" panel in 4. I'm happy to discuss different positions all day long, but if you're just going to brush off a perfectly reasonable option with sarcasm, well, you do you. From my end, I very clearly see all manufacturers trying to create OLEDs that are a) rollable, b) high refresh rate or c) high PPI. They have the ability and capacity to make a manufacturable and sellable 27" FHD panels right now. Unless you're able to show a single technological hurdle why they can't, it's quite clear that they are choosing not to - for whatever reasons, certainly not technological or cost-related ones.

Like CPU dies, displays are cut from bigger sheets. The smaller you cut, the more you sell. Applying the same manufacturing cost, you'll make the same or more money (the latter achieved via marketing). Simple as that.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I read your answer, I disagree, which is very different from me brushing it off. And I gave you specifics about why I disagree.

This also isn't the same as brushing you off. This is your billion dollar opportunity. Because you have special knowledge that companies that leverage billions and fight tooth and nail for market position as we both have noted either "could not" or "would not" do. I argue it's the inability (via ROI and difficulty of manufacturing). You argue it's motivation (primarily that it's "apparently" simple to cut up panels, devise electronics for them and ship them out). The manufacturers have more information on what sells than we do. They obviously know that people are buying 1080p displays but it's not a market segment they "choose to" enter with OLED.

So, here's your opportunity. Whether you believe I'm being sarcastic or not it doesn't matter: here is your Microsoft or Apple moment to be ahead of an entire industry and be where people are going instead of where they are.

EDIT: Also, for your spare time reading consideration: https://www.zdnet.com/article/fear-...e-axe-for-oled-tv-burn-in-and-market-squeeze/
Most illuminating is the history aspect. Highlight-able is that "Big" OLED isn't profitable really for LG (and it was so not profitable for Samsung that they exited the market) and they are having a huge amount of problems in production. Which you have repeatedly stated they don't.

 

[kasakka]

EDIT: Also, for your spare time reading consideration: https://www.zdnet.com/article/fear-...e-axe-for-oled-tv-burn-in-and-market-squeeze/
Most illuminating is the history aspect. Highlight-able is that "Big" OLED isn't profitable really for LG (and it was so not profitable for Samsung that they exited the market) and they are having a huge amount of problems in production. Which you have repeatedly stated they don't.

Samsung are investing $11 billion in QD-OLED production though so they have in their own research decided that now making OLEDs is viable. Maybe this means that getting Micro-LED to a mass market product is such a huge endeavor that they need a stop-gap option because they can't get enough improvements with their LCD "QLED" TVs to go against LG and Sony, both of which offer OLED models.

I do agree that it's not as simple as "don't want to do it". Most consumers don't buy expensive displays and neither do most businesses. There are probably thousands of offices that still use sub-1080p screens for their employees. While the enthusiast market is there, it's not going to be all that lucrative especially with the way large TVs are getting so good that people would rather buy one of those than a high end desktop display. So it becomes a bit of a chicken and egg situation where people are buying big displays because smaller ones don't exist so manufacturers don't make smaller ones because they don't sell.

At the same time current DP and HDMI versions pose limitations on refresh rates right now. I expect that in a few years we will see more options for 4K 120 Hz and things like 4K ultrawides (5120x2160) in larger sizes with 120+ Hz refresh rates. Maybe even some 8K screens because running them at 60 Hz over a single input is possible.

I hate this "everything that is not insert tech is garbage" mentality. Even on mobile devices I have no real complaints about using a LCD display on my 2017 iPad Pro vs using an OLED on my iPhone XS. Just because something isn't perfect does not mean it's bad. In 2016 I bought what was considered one of the best gaming TVs at the time, the Samsung KS8000. Several years later you have TVs that are better in every single metric but that still does not make my TV bad. It's what I have and I will eventually replace it with something better, maybe in 1-2 years time. Works fine for its intended purposes even with the issues it has.

 

[euskalzabe]

Could just be a matter of economy of scale, too. More people buy TVs than monitors, and more cell phones than TVs.

Profit margin might just not be high enough for them to bother with 27-32” OLED at any scale where it would be rationally priced.

I absolutely get that. But if they're already making the 55" panels, and you just need to cut them in 4 - and let's not pretend that's the most complicated part of the manufacturing process - then the profit margin remains the same, IF you sold it at $400. Sell it at $700 claiming to be the first to market, and your profit margin stops being an issue. That would enable them to see how an initial product line goes, and if it does well, economies of scale will come into play later on as they ramp up this product category. There really seems to not be any good reason why they wouldn't try.

This is your billion dollar opportunity. Because you have special knowledge

If LG is having so much trouble and losing so much money, I wonder why they don't just scrap OLED plans. Their end-goal must be bankruptcy, huh? When a company keeps doing something for 7 years, they're not doing poorly. When they actually do poorly, they stop the product line. In fact, the article you linked to also clearly states it's falling LCD prices that are hitting them hard, while "its OLED TV business made a profit for the first time this year". That's a sign of improvement, not the opposite, and we could also get into why Samsung isn't releasing QLED monitors that are not the 2 models from 2 years ago or the giant new one for $1000. If you actually read the article, it also mentions LG's fear is that OLED won't sell not because of any manufacturing issue, but because Samsung - and smaller Chinese firms - is running away with the market with cheap LCDs.

You keep sarcastically pointing to my "special" knowledge - because manufacturers never make anti-consumer choices, right? - instead of demonstrating why a $400 OLED panel wouldn't sell. If anything, it'd give LG a way into cheaper panels to counteract Samsung's onslaught. I clearly think it would sell, since it's manufacturable now, nothing in the process would change other than simple cutting, those "electronics" you believe are so complex are the same already in use for panel assembly in bigger OLEDs, the resolution would be the same people are buying today but with far better IQ, and the product wouldn't end up costing an arm and a leg). You clearly think it wouldn't sell, but haven't offered tangible evidence as to why it's not, other than the article that actually mentions improvements in LG's production. In fact, if they're indeed not making enough money with the big panels, what's stopping them from trying a hail Mary, making a small batch of 27" FHD panels cutting what they have, and price them at $700 for the luxury of being first (-ish, except Asus) to market? If they're facing certain death, they'd be crazy not to try a small line that repackages the product to see if it sticks while making more money on each sold.

In any case, I'm much more hopeful for MicroLed than anything else - same benefits as OLED, none of the organic drawbacks. But that's a few years away, and still doesn't explain why LG doesn't try to do anything different with the panels it already has. Price is rarely an excuse, because consumers don't really know what they want. Apple demonstrated this by releasing the iPhone: nobody thought it'd sell well because it was expensive, and now look at them, one of the most profitable companies ever. Display manufacturers sell cheap models because they put out garbage that's 10 years old, repackaged in shiny chassis. Make a compelling monitor for a sub-$1000 price, and many - thought not most - consumers will buy it, justifying a premium price for premium quality just like they do with so many tech products already.

At the same time current DP and HDMI versions pose limitations on refresh rates right now. I expect that in a few years we will see more options for 4K 120 Hz and things like 4K ultrawides (5120x2160) in larger sizes with 120+ Hz refresh rates. Maybe even some 8K screens because running them at 60 Hz over a single input is possible.

This is an interesting point. HDMI 2.1 spec was finalized two years ago. Why is it that manufacturers are still shipping monitors with 1.4? Why is 2.0 still in the minority? If nothing else, regardless of the resolution bandwidth that a panel requires, you'd get the benefit of VRR (and 8k or 10k at 120hz, though no panel can display that yet). I'd argue the reason is the same logic as my OLED argument: they don't want to. Otherwise, I don't see why we can't ship all new monitors at $300 and above (if we want some product segmentation, which I'm sure manufacturers would love) with 2.1, so VRR becomes the new de-facto standard in the industry.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

If LG is having so much trouble and losing so much money, I wonder why they don't just scrap OLED plans. Their end-goal must be bankruptcy, huh? When a company keeps doing something for 7 years, they're not doing poorly. When they actually do poorly, they stop the product line. In fact, the article you linked to also clearly states it's falling LCD prices that are hitting them hard, while "its OLED TV business made a profit for the first time this year". That's a sign of improvement, not the opposite, and we could also get into why Samsung isn't releasing QLED monitors that are not the 2 models from 2 years ago or the giant new one for $1000. If you actually read the article, it also mentions LG's fear is that OLED won't sell not because of any manufacturing issue, but because Samsung - and smaller Chinese firms - is running away with the market with cheap LCDs.

You either only skimmed the article or you didn't really try to comprehend everything that was said.
Yes, OLED was profitable for the first time this year, but they no longer have the base of LCD panels to prop up support for LG Display. In other words they do not have a dependable source of income and as noted in the article they are playing a very delicate dance with margins and what the market will bear.
So no, it's not a sign of improvement. They could take more risks if the LCD side was doing better, but really they can't.
The LCD market dropped out for them. They are straddling bankruptcy. Meanwhile their main competitor and the Chinese are eating their lunch. They were in a much better position 5-6 years ago when OLED wasn't profitable but LCD was insanely profitable.

You keep sarcastically pointing to my "special" knowledge - because manufacturers never make anti-consumer choices, right? - instead of demonstrating why a $400 OLED panel wouldn't sell. If anything, it'd give LG a way into cheaper panels to counteract Samsung's onslaught. I clearly think it would sell, since it's manufacturable now, nothing in the process would change other than simple cutting, those "electronics" you believe are so complex are the same already in use for panel assembly in bigger OLEDs, the resolution would be the same people are buying today but with far better IQ, and the product wouldn't end up costing an arm and a leg). You clearly think it wouldn't sell, but haven't offered tangible evidence as to why it's not, other than the article that actually mentions improvements in LG's production. In fact, if they're indeed not making enough money with the big panels, what's stopping them from trying a hail Mary, making a small batch of 27" FHD panels cutting what they have, and price them at $700 for the luxury of being first (-ish, except Asus) to market? If they're facing certain death, they'd be crazy not to try a small line that repackages the product to see if it sticks while making more money on each sold.

You keep acting like these businesses that literally have spent billions in R&D are a joke and are playing some game to specifically piss you off. As if after losing billions dollars they aren't interested in making profit. The arrogance and the chip on your shoulder regarding what they should and should not do from your armchair is incredibly annoying.
LG Display is essentially fighting for its existence and the other display manufacturer is likely going to release displays that are better visually but worse in terms of longevity but because of their bets and profit will likely still win.

You claim to have the solution. It's obvious you should be running these companies. You know what it takes to fabricate not only the panels but also everything to drive them including all the costs in R&D and packaging and also distribution channels. Then you also know what market risks to take. What the market will bear. And what enthusiasts want. So you think it's sarcasm, but if you know all of that information then you should be the one to do it. If you think that LG even knows a hairs breath more than you (which you don't) then you would be satisfied with what they're doing.

In any case, I'm much more hopeful for MicroLed than anything else - same benefits as OLED, none of the organic drawbacks. But that's a few years away, and still doesn't explain why LG doesn't try to do anything different with the panels it already has. Price is rarely an excuse, because consumers don't really know what they want. Apple demonstrated this by releasing the iPhone: nobody thought it'd sell well because it was expensive, and now look at them, one of the most profitable companies ever. Display manufacturers sell cheap models because they put out garbage that's 10 years old, repackaged in shiny chassis. Make a compelling monitor for a sub-$1000 price, and many - thought not most - consumers will buy it, justifying a premium price for premium quality just like they do with so many tech products already.

Have you ever studied business and marketing? Have you ever had to govern at least a mid level business making 50M+? I ask this because even knowledge about the theories behind business practices would inform you that you're comparing two entirely different products (let alone product segments) and it's clear the market will only bear certain things at certain price points. Pointing at the iPhone that "they did it" doesn't work literally in any other market. I can reverse this by simply asking: If this is repeatable which you assert it is then why aren't any of these companies replicating Apple? There are only two real responses to that question: either a) it's not that simple or b) they're the biggest dumb-asses on the planet who categorically don't want money and would rather go bankrupt. You don't accept Occam's Razor.
If your theory was correct, the X27 should have sold gangbusters. But it didn't. The people spending $10k on a display are not gamers and they already have their distribution locked up in terms of whom they're buying from and what they're buying (which since we're bringing up Apple, is the reason why the impending XDR display is disruptive to the market, despite the casual gamer knowledge here).
Gamers and even enthusiasts are not spending that level of money. Even after seeing the X27 fail, the Dell 5k fail, the Dell 8k fail, and the fact that people are still a majority on 1080p monitors and buying relatively low cost computers you think there is a market of just millions of people lining up to buy a $700 display (also, there are $700 displays out now. We're getting into 144Hz ultrawides with 1ms response time, IPS or VA, and Freesync 2 or Gsync for that money at 30-34". The niche for a display of this type which is excellent in almost every way is near zero. But it does demonstrate the gambles that are occurring and their placement into niche markets). And clearly that market doesn't exist.
And for the sake of argument whether that market does or does not exist: are you willing to bankrupt your company, have the loss of a huge amount of jobs and have your legacy be your failure because you gambled? It's easy for you to say "yes" because you're not in that position and you don't have to deal with the consequences of that failure. Which ultimately is responsibility to their share holders. Not what one enthusiast wants.
There are gambles they are willing to take and there are ones they are not and that has to do with odds and statistics. They have gambled deep with their pocket book for this tech because they saw a future in it. You're so focused on what this means to you, that you're unable to focus on a much bigger picture for these companies.

This is an interesting point. HDMI 2.1 spec was finalized two years ago. Why is it that manufacturers are still shipping monitors with 1.4? Why is 2.0 still in the minority? If nothing else, regardless of the resolution bandwidth that a panel requires, you'd get the benefit of VRR (and 8k or 10k at 120hz, though no panel can display that yet). I'd argue the reason is the same logic as my OLED argument: they don't want to. Otherwise, I don't see why we can't ship all new monitors at $300 and above (if we want some product segmentation, which I'm sure manufacturers would love) with 2.1, so VRR becomes the new de-facto standard in the industry.

The same as all of these other techs. Economies of scale. New tech like HDMI 2.1 will be reserved for people interested in being early adopters on flagship products. Until it becomes worth it to trickle down on everything else, they won't bother. Expect that everything with those specs to be at the top for some time. DP 2.0 will also take forever. The costs associated with it are much higher than any previous connector and it makes zero sense to "splurge" on a connection type when they can save the money when it doesn't matter on a $300-$500 TV. Or at this point probably up to a $1500 TV.
(Which yeah, of course you'd come up with the same answer. Not that it's money, positioning product in the market, or any of those things. I'm starting to wonder why I bother. As noted earlier I don't think you even have business theoretical knowledge regardless of practical knowledge in terms of product development. If they can save $20 a unit, that equates to 10s of millions of dollars. They are a business. They are here to make a profit. Not just add features or connections or do things that do not have profit incentive behind them. As I've stated more than once, this isn't to screw over any customer it has to do with market realities. In other words you are one person and if you never bought a product from them they wouldn't give a shit. They're interested in what the majority of people are doing and are willing to spend. Which might be where we are in the first place. That exact thing clearly doesn't taste good to you going down so it's easier to complain about it. It's probably just easier to call them assholes then to have to address that they are a business. So yeah, they don't want to. They'd rather make a profit and also stay in business.)

 

[euskalzabe]

There are gambles they are willing to take and there are ones they are not and that has to do with odds and statistics.

This perfectly sums up our discrepant views: we consider the gambles they can make wildly different.

No point on pushing this further. We're not going to agree on anything other than the fact that we have a fundamental disagreement. We'll see how things pan out and who's intuition better approximates the outcomes.

Good luck, sir, and peace!

 

[Deleted member 89018]

I’m not familiar with OLED manufacturing to really know, but if it’s as “easy” as cutting a large panel into segments then adding electronics, /shrug. I’d buy a 27” 1080p OLED screen at that price, sure.

But a $400 monitor isn’t something most of the public will buy, when laptops outsell desktops by such a large margin, and desktops are sold on the cheap with $80 22” weekend special displays.

So even if it is “that easy” - four of those 27” $400 monitors might not sell at the same pace as one 55” $1600 TV.

we’re kind of in an echo chamber here. “But picture quality!” Doesn’t mean anything to most people who get their photo fix from Instagram feeds on their cell phone or watch HDR movies streaming on their TV’s Amazon Prime app. The market of people looking for a quality desktop display is basically enthusiasts and visual professionals. and I don’t think there’s enough of us to make it worth their while.

 

[bananadude]

I’m not familiar with OLED manufacturing to really know, but if it’s as “easy” as cutting a large panel into segments then adding electronics, /shrug. I’d buy a 27” 1080p OLED screen at that price, sure.

But a $400 monitor isn’t something most of the public will buy, when laptops outsell desktops by such a large margin, and desktops are sold on the cheap with $80 22” weekend special displays.

So even if it is “that easy” - four of those 27” $400 monitors might not sell at the same pace as one 55” $1600 TV.

we’re kind of in an echo chamber here. “But picture quality!” Doesn’t mean anything to most people who get their photo fix from Instagram feeds on their cell phone or watch HDR movies streaming on their TV’s Amazon Prime app. The market of people looking for a quality desktop display is basically enthusiasts and visual professionals. and I don’t think there’s enough of us to make it worth their while.

This is EXACTLY the problem. Forums such as this are full of people with very blinkered views of the world. The top selling monitors on Amazon and every single computer retailer are cheap basic 1080p models at $200 a pop. The market for 32" four-figure OLEDs is so infinitesimally small, it's not even worth any manufacturers time thinking about. It's easy to think otherwise if you spend a lot of time on forums like this and don't interact much with 'real' humans... heck, I'm guilty of this myself, but some people do need a reality check from time to time. Of course, there will always be people willing to pay any price for high end tech, but the vast majority people (and by vast, we're talking like 95%) just don't care and want the cheapest thing possible, damn picture quality to hell. Sorry fellow enthusiasts and professionals, we just don't matter when it comes to affordability and value for money, and never will, so get used to it.

 

[euskalzabe]

Sorry fellow enthusiasts and professionals, we just don't matter when it comes to affordability and value for money, and never will, so get used to it.

You do make a good point there. It is hella infuriating though.

 

[bananadude]

You do make a good point there. It is hella infuriating though.

I think the only hope may reside with LG and their OLED TV's... if they decide to make them smaller. LG have the 48" due next year, so if that sells well, who knows? There would be a wait, but it's the only chance I think. I know JOLED have plans to make smaller OLED monitors, assuming that's still on track, but they're going to be stupid expensive. We know the 48" OLED from LG will be priced relative to 55" and above, which are affordable and offer excellent performance for the money. We might even see an RRP of 3-figures on the 48". Sure, there's burn-in to perhaps be mindful of (depending on your use case), but I'd take that risk if the price was right over crappy LCD junk... i.e every PC monitor.

 

[l88bastard]

I think the only hope may reside with LG and their OLED TV's... if they decide to make them smaller. LG have the 48" due next year, so if that sells well, who knows? There would be a wait, but it's the only chance I think. I know JOLED have plans to make smaller OLED monitors, assuming that's still on track, but they're going to be stupid expensive. We know the 48" OLED from LG will be priced relative to 55" and above, which are affordable and offer excellent performance for the money. We might even see an RRP of 3-figures on the 48". Sure, there's burn-in to perhaps be mindful of (depending on your use case), but I'd take that risk if the price was right over crappy LCD junk... i.e every PC monitor.

A 48" $1000 C10 with 4k120VRR 800HDR would be a dream display and at that price point relatively disposable in the event of burn in 2-3 years out. Swap out a new panel and good to go for another 2-3 and by that time our alien overlords will have landed with baby jeebus to bestow miraculous blessed baised 32" 4k240hzVRR Oled grail miracle worker holy moses crack rock!

 

[euskalzabe]

$999 48" OLED would indeed be nice. Too bad I already have 2 HDR 4K TVs in my house, so I'm not buying any more in the next 3-5 years. Meanwhile, I want better monitors, but 48" is waaaaaaay too big for me...

 

[Smoked Brisket]

It's not 120hz, it's technically 98hz just like the Acer Predator or Asus ROG "120hz" panels as that's all DP 1.4 really supports at 4:4:4, but regardless, it doesn't have freesync/VRR which I think is the minimum for alot of people to jump ship, whereas those displays have gsync.

I am currently still using my Wasabi Mango UHD55 IPS its awesome. It supports freesync with a little known firmware update. I got it straight outa Korea.

 

[crazycuz20]

I am currently still using my Wasabi Mango UHD55 IPS its awesome. It supports freesync with a little known firmware update. I got it straight outa Korea.

I suppose a "NAS" would work for this. I have an old unused low-end Lenovo PC sitting around I was thinking of using for this purpose using some lightweight NAS OS or something. The issue is that even this NAS seems like overkill just to serve a single drive's worth of files (like ~80-100GB)? Not really sure what I should do. I just want the files to be easily accessible in the file systems of my Mac and PC (and maybe streamable to mobile devices).[/QUOTE]

How close do you sit to you display? I tried using a 4K display from 3-4 feet and it was too big. I find 27" WQHD /34" UWQHD perfect for now. Though once GPU's can push 4K@120+ 32" 4K would be perfect from my sitting position.

 

[Smoked Brisket]

I would say I am 2 to 3 feet away. Just a big desk, no more. Its not too big for me, I see people all the time sitting right up against triple monitors and saying 55 is too big, not sure I get it.

 

[Comixbooks]

Use a 21.5" ASUS for general use then use something bigger like 24" 27" for gaming. The problem with really big monitors you get blasted with so much fucking light it takes over how your eyeball naturally works. It can screw you up at work and wreck havok on your personal life. Just getting by with something smaller gives you a frame to focus on something like being bombared with a webpage that has about a dozen adds but all you really need to do is read the text and a Ultrawide isn't really the best for that.

 

[Comixbooks]

I'm not a fan of OLED actually I think my AMOLED screen on my Samsung actually give me more strain than my old LG IPS phone.

 

[Panel]

I'm not a fan of OLED actually I think my AMOLED screen on my Samsung actually give me more strain than my old LG IPS phone.

It seems to be the opposite for me. My old iPhone 8 Plus gave me more strain than my OLED model, but I think that may be because of True Tone (essentially a fancy, dynamic blue light filter). I won’t know until I try using it with True Tone turned off.

 

[Zinn]

I just want 32" 8K Gsync at 120hz. Will be slumming it on my Alienware ultrawide until that comes out.

 

[crazycuz20]

I would say I am 2 to 3 feet away. Just a big desk, no more. Its not too big for me, I see people all the time sitting right up against triple monitors and saying 55 is too big, not sure I get it.

You can put me in that camp. I ran a triple wide (23X3) eyefinity setup for years but found it too much. Great for racing sims but found it a PIA when working and having to drag the mouse across all that real estate.
- For productivity dual 1440P 27inch monitors
- For general gaming 34 inch UW
- For racing sims VR

 

[Panel]

I just want 32" 8K Gsync at 120hz. Will be slumming it on my Alienware ultrawide until that comes out.

I don’t mention it a lot here because I know that it’s frankly asking for too much, but I do kinda feel that 4K is a bit too much of a compromise at 32”. I’ve used a 5K 27” monitor, and it’s perfect at that pixel density. 4K is quite a ways bellow that, but it’s still good at 27”. But when you go up to 32”, I find that the pixel density isn’t quite there. 8K with 3x scaling would fix that, but I’m sure that it’ll be 2 generations of GPUs before 8K 60Hz gaming even becomes viable, much less 120Hz. For that reason, I still ask for and look forward to 32” 4K displays anyway.

 

[Desert Fish]

I don’t mention it a lot here because I know that it’s frankly asking for too much, but I do kinda feel that 4K is a bit too much of a compromise at 32”. I’ve used a 5K 27” monitor, and it’s perfect at that pixel density. 4K is quite a ways bellow that, but it’s still good at 27”. But when you go up to 32”, I find that the pixel density isn’t quite there. 8K with 3x scaling would fix that, but I’m sure that it’ll be 2 generations of GPUs before 8K 60Hz gaming even becomes viable, much less 120Hz. For that reason, I still ask for and look forward to 32” 4K displays anyway.

Interesting perspectives, so different from my own. 2.5K at 27" is all the pixel density I want, and would be happy with less. Way too small, though. And 32" is also unacceptably small.

 

[l88bastard]

I would LOVE it if a 32" 4k240hzVRR OLED would sit on my face!

 

[pippenainteasy]

I would LOVE it if a 32" 4k240hzVRR OLED would sit on my face!

Wouldn't you prefer micro-LED? I mean everything good about OLED except no burn in?

 

[Zinn]

I don’t mention it a lot here because I know that it’s frankly asking for too much, but I do kinda feel that 4K is a bit too much of a compromise at 32”. I’ve used a 5K 27” monitor, and it’s perfect at that pixel density. 4K is quite a ways bellow that, but it’s still good at 27”. But when you go up to 32”, I find that the pixel density isn’t quite there. 8K with 3x scaling would fix that, but I’m sure that it’ll be 2 generations of GPUs before 8K 60Hz gaming even becomes viable, much less 120Hz. For that reason, I still ask for and look forward to 32” 4K displays anyway.

Me too, I loved my Dell UP3216Q before my exterior window got blown in by a wind storm and smashed it.

But since then I can't justify shelling out $1200 for the same thing when the low refresh rate and pixel density wasn't ever that great.

The Alienware 34 ultrawide is really a good compromise for now, but maybe in a few years 8K won't be so far out of reach.

 

[Armenius]

It's not 120hz, it's technically 98hz just like the Acer Predator or Asus ROG "120hz" panels as that's all DP 1.4 really supports at 4:4:4, but regardless, it doesn't have freesync/VRR which I think is the minimum for alot of people to jump ship, whereas those displays have gsync.

Without HDR, the X27 and PG27UQ can go up to 144 Hz in full RGB just fine at 4K.

 

[euskalzabe]

Wouldn't you prefer micro-LED? I mean everything good about OLED except no burn in?

I would, but if Samsung deemed to grace us with the Q50R equivalent in a monitor version, a 32" 4K QLED panel, I'd be quite happy for a little while too.

 

[Comixbooks]

They have a LG oled TV in the back room at Walmart it's like less than a quarter inch thick in some places wonder who would buy such as thing with a screen that narrow not reinforced with anything on the back. All it's going to take is one of our Heavy duty scrubbing machines to bump it and its landfill. It might be broken already.

I just gave away one of my 1440p TN panels to my brother just because I like Samsung VA that much better. Would like to ditch my 27 inch but might have a use for it down the road.