I realize that LCD’s are the dominant technology, but why would a supposedly neutral research organization analyze technology with an LCD bias? This bias is what I am trying to combat. Regarding your three points:

1) You should be taking the user’s perspective. If the three sigma lifetime is less than what an OLED display provides, why is it meaningful? If OLEDs had a 1M hour lifetime, would it be meaningful as an advantage over LCDs for a mobile phone or notebook? Obviously no! Meanwhile Novaled has demonstarted lifetimes approaching 1M hours.

2) Your assumptions are wrong. The Nokia usage models show both black and white backgrounds and while the black background improves the power consumption for OLEDs, the OLED displays still use less power than LCDs with a white background. Just another case of LCD bias.

3) The point I made is that Apple has traditionally opted for differentiation. The issue is what will buyers pay for. It is not a case of pure price, a mistake that many followers in the industry think is most relevant. Look at what recently happened to Dell; they built an undifferentiated smart phone and it was apparently rejected by the market (carriers). I do not quarrel with the fact that OLED displays are more expensive than TFT LCDs, just the conclusions drawn about the difference.

I recall when DisplaySearch started, one of our competitors kept harping on the poor yields and high costs of TFT-LCDs as an indication of their inability to compete with CRTs. We were able to gain market share because the world changes and market researchers need to be ahead of the curve and not behind it.

I appreciate the opportunity to get a platform to present my points.

Barry

1. Lifetime – while OLED lifetimes may be long enough for a notebook lifetime, the blog post was actually pointing to the fact is that both CCFL and LED backlit TFT LCDs have longer lifetimes than OLEDs.

2. Power consumption – the caveat in your assertion is the “usage model for mobile products” which typically involves changing the user interface from mostly white to mostly black, which favors OLED in terms of power consumption. This type of control is simply not available in a notebook device using standard browser and office productivity programs which use mostly white interfaces.

3. Price – you actually agreed with our assertion that OLEDs have a price premium; you just think that Apple will accept such a price premium.

1. OLED lifetimes are 50,000 hours and growing. Apple recently advertised that their notebook had a battery that could last for 8 hours and could be charged 1,000 times. So they apparently expect the notebook to be used for 8,000 hours. The OLED display would last for more than 6 battery replacements, more than likely the life of the notebook.

2. OLED displays have been proven to be brighter than TFT LCDs at the same luminance as demonstrated by both Samsung Mobile Displays and Nokia. Moreover, Nokia’s usage model for mobile products showed that OLEDs used less power than TFT LCDs on panels with the same size and resolution.

3. OLED displays are more expensive now than TFT LCDs, but when has that ever stopped Apple from employing a technology that is highly differentiating.

DisplaySearch is batting 0 for 3 on these items. Where they may have it right is that LG Display, which has a 2nd Gen OLED Fab is not ready to supply high volumes of 10” displays