Sony Unveils Crazy Expensive 17-inch and 25-inch OLED Displays

14

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Henskelava

As a former video technition I can tell you that Sony owns the reference monitor market.  These products are NOT for the consumer.  These Sony TV's will not be at Best Buy.  These are MONITORS for broadcast studios.  Every studio has a few reference monitors .  One or two for the video tech, 2 or 3 for the control room.  They are used as reference mnonitors because somewhere in a studio they need to see what is really going out on air.  These monitors are replacing a similar sony lcd product that cost about 20,000.

The fact that sony is making OLED the new reference standard points to OLED adoption in the future to the consumer market.  Thats because the reference monitor is the standard by which the broadcast facility measures its product.

Again, these are in no way consumer products but soley for the use of broadcast facilities as a reference or set up tool.

avatar

sarmoti

$25K has been the average price for a reference grade broadcast/post-production monitor for the past 40 years. These are not really more expensive than the models they are replacing. You don't really think that the movies you see in the theater and network commercials/TV shows were color graded and QC'd on consumer tv's from Best Buy do you?

avatar

sarmoti

Double post

avatar

Asterixx

The first plasma TV I ever saw was on the wall at a local high-end electronics store a friend of mine worked at. It was made by Pioneer, measured 26 inches across the diagonal, and it cost one thousand dollars. Per. Inch. That's right: $26k for a non-HD 26" TV! Now, a mere 14 or 15 years later, I just bought a 50" Samsung 3-D plasma TV (albeit a 720p one, but my satellite box only displays in 720P anyway) for the grand sum of $599.

For that reason I've got faith that OLED will come way down in price. Either that or it'll go away entirely, because it simply does not offer enough to justify paying much more than plasma or LCD...

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

Not. Worth. It.

Sony in the equation after all the bull**** they have been pulling lately with the PS3 hacking ordeal: Definitely. Not. Worth. It.

They'll find some way to rustle the consumer's feathers with something stupid, as always, like "You can't use non-Sony TV or monitor mounting kits with our products per the License Agreement." And then spend the effort to track down  (and sue) purchasers of non-Sony mounting kits because they don't get the $500+ or so for the kit and blame the consumer on--drumroll--being involved in patent infringement per their patented mounting system. I wouldn't put it past them. Yes, I know the little example sounds very lame, but what do you expect from Sony?

Anyways...I never knew IBM was behind the dropping prices in LCDs and the respective manufacturing technologies. I  just thought that it just gradually became cheaper to produce an LCD than a CRT--that, and it quickly became a commodity a while ago (and still is).

avatar

mofitgti

I am ordering a waterproof version for my shower, with touchscreen to i think lol

avatar

kevjohn

It's a rare day when Max PC complains about the price of hardware.

avatar

violian

It'll definately come down in prices with time. When I was in H.S. (10 years ago), I remember wakling into Ultimate Electronics and drooling over the 42" plasma sets that were retailing for $12,000 a piece at the time. I never envisioned myself owning one because it costed like 4 times my car. Now you can get a 42" plasma set for like $400...lol.

avatar

someuid

I wonder why they cost so much.  LCD panels used to cost so much because of the high failure rates during manufacturing (1 in 10) until IBM came out with a new production process that dropped the failure rate to something like 1 in 100.

avatar

sarmoti

They cost so much because they are high end professional monitors with features and connectivity that are not needed in consumer displays. For example, they have 3G HD-SDI inputs and 4 card slots for extra connectivity. All this aside from the fact that they are produced to have the highest quality/accurate image on the market. Plus it's for the pro market which means that they'll only sell thousands of them which means all research/manufacturing costs have to be spread over a smaller amount of sales.

avatar

violian

I talked to an expert in this area a couple years ago - he was a flat-panel broker/middleman. Not only were the failure rates high during manufacturing, but something like 1 in 10 units would arrive on the dock from overseas broken. So in a sense, for every 10 panels, only 8 would make it to the consumer - as to the exorbitant prices during that time. It was either Samsung or Sharp that came up with the plastic panels that had a much lower chance of getting broken during shipping - as to why all panels are plastic these days instead of glass.

avatar

someuid

The process I'd read about concerning IBM was how they made the plastic panel that holds the liquid crystal.  Apparently the old process involved rubbing the panel with velvet cloth to create channels in which the liquid crystal would fill and form that pattern we call pixels.

IBM found a way to do it with an electrical charge that was far quicker and more reliable.

Funny how two small changes brought the prices down so much.

avatar

Neufeldt2002

I would imagine that with continued development the price will come down. Otherwise, I would like to see them in action, not that I can afford them, but still.

avatar

perryra1968

How does Crysis look?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.