That is a lot of TV. I own 2 x 55 LG OLED TV myself, the 55inch ones go on sale every christmas and its the strangest thing because unlike normal electronics they hardly go down in price. $1500 TV i bought almost 2 years ago is selling maybe $100 less than when i got it. lol
I think really the only thing better on the newer ones is "HDR" and 120Hz panels? I assume the software is about the same, which is to say its pretty great. The magic remote is nice as well. Haven't researched the upgrades lately to see.
I'm guessing with this plant the costs will eventually make my TV see price drop though.
Displays are in for a slowdown as they approach the limits of our eyes. 5 years from now 8k, 240hz, 2nd-gen HDR displays will pretty much deliver what our eyes can absorb.
I doubt it. Rec.2020 is not even the full human spectrum and most TV now can barely reach 80%.
HDR has better chance but 1000 nite sustain 100% is still extremely difficult with one or 2 exception. Then again 1000 nuts 100% is a rarely necessary. But there are provisions for 2000, 4000 and even 10k nits.
Dunno if 5 years is enough to reach 2000 100%.
Resolution wise 4K is good enough considering viewing distance and screen size. You would need to be watching a 42” tv from >3ft away to see the difference from 4K to 8k
Beyond 2000 sustained nits is verging on too bright for a display. I've seen some medical reference displays capable and the joke of nerds getting tans from bright displays feels like it could be true with those.
As for migration to 8K, I could use it. I have three 27" 4K displays in a PLP setup that are about 24" away. So for computer monitors at least, 8K has clear benefits.
Not sure what "sustained" brightness is. If a measuring device would measure 2000 nits across the entire display for more than a fraction of a second, then yes, that would be completely ridiculous.
2000 nits for localized peak brightness is completely reasonable however. On a sunny day, the reflections of light off a lake can reach 10'000 nits.
"Beyond 2000 sustained nits is verging on too bright for a display". Not in a sunlit or otherwise (artificially) bright room. It's indeed blinding bright in a dark room though.
We need color and motion improvements, but honestly the difference between 1080p and 4K are limited, particularly if you're rendering a game at 4K and displaying at 1080p, looks amazing, occasionally better than native 4K.
I'm all for better colors and framerates tho. 8K is just increasing processing requirements for little gain. Most people's eyesight is not as good as mine corrected and I can't see a lot of difference between 1080p and 4K, much less 8K.
I guess the higher resolution does give you more pixels to allow for the use of the higher color range tho.
Downsampling 4K to 1080p is definitely not better than native 4K. You're bringing up what sounds to me a DPI issue that's more about what resolution you're rendering vs. your screen size.
Burn in is not really a thing for newer displays, they have lots of features to prevent it. Unless you disable every energy savings feature and stuff on a display it will be fine or stare at static screen all the time.. never had a issue with it.
Burn in is as alive as always. Their software features only decreases brightness and uses algorithms to make it a bit slower or less obvious. More usage time = quicker burn in. Its that simple. LG even admitted that openly. It doesnt matter how often your turn it off after usage. It will still add up.
Theres a reason there are still no OLED monitors. And that is burn in. It would happen even quicker on them, and it already happens quick if you play games with HUDs or watch lots of news channels. On PCs you would see it in a matter of weeks.
That doesn't make sense, IDK if there are OLED monitors but there certainly are laptop screens OLED, which are expected to at least last a couple of years with far higher difficulty of replacement than a monitor.
The main reason that there are no OLED desktop monitors is not burn-in but costs. Desktop monitors have one of the lowest profit margins in the business because it's super price sensitive. OLED simply cannot compete in price. OLED is however present in high end notebook because the ASP is high and panel makers can sell them in bulk rather than retail (much lower cost overhead).
Another reason is production planning. Desktop monitors use panels from older gen flat panel plants when the size is no longer optimal for TV. No one has built a plant specifically for desktop panels in ages. There is hardly any old gen OLED plants, and whatever supply there is went into notebooks.
Laptops dont nearly see as much usage as desktop PCs. Plus the screens are too small (many dont notice it on their phones either) and if they are being used stationary, they often get an external screen plugged into it.
The monitor market is pretty huge. You know how I know and how that is generally defined? On the massive amount of different models. There are literally thousands of different models available right now. You think because some 27" gaming monitors cost up to 3k, as much as a very good 75" TV, it means the market isnt that huge? Everyone, incl. me, cried like little babies for OLED to finally arrive, because LCD has so many drawbacks. But then reality and its burn in arrived, and it was even obvious to the manufacturers, that it wouldnt go well, even though they already scam people quite audaciously with their high priced gaming monitors.
There are OLED monitors, not many but there hasn't been any panels to use, LG doesn't make their panels below 55" and of course there has been a huge production of smaller panels for phones but not in the 20"-34" range. Now however production is beginning to scale up with laptop and normal desktop size panels, but it's coming from smaller to bigger. Give it a few years.
Having owned three of LG’s oleds, and currently using a second one for PC photo editing and gaming, I can’t agree with you. My two year old sets have no signs of burn in that I can detect in normal usage and the picture is still markedly better than any lcd based TVs I have seen to date. I have watched all the videos on burn in and I know it can be an issue with heavy usage of certain types of content, but with my mixed usage and 15 hours a week of usage, they seem to be holding up perfectly and the benefits of OLEDs far outweigh the risks of burn in.
Most of these comments seem to come from people who don’t own OLEDs, who have read about burn in, but who never have actually had any real work problems with OLED burn in. I’ve yet to read a single comment of someone who claims to have significant burn in related issues for normal average use case scenarios, so I think the problem is a bit overblown. I personally think the perfect blacks and excellent color are worth it to the point that, even if I had to buy one every three years, which does not appear to be the case, I am happy to keep doing so for the benefits which are sizeable.
Gotta love these comments... 15 hours a week of usage... cute. As much as mine does sometimes a day. As Ive said before, I was a huge OLED fanboy once. I had 4 phones with OLED which ALL had burn in, some even after only a few weeks. Ive owned 2 different LG OLED TVs and seen several times as many from other users in real life and they ALL had burn in. Its always the same with you guys. You claim you have no burn in, but when pointed out in person, you deny it or say its not that bad. The "30 fps is enough" people of modern times...
Second off, enough with the anecdotes - especially when it comes to your phones, because you are simply lying.
Rtings has a real world OLED burn in test. It took 5,000+ hours of truly static viewing time to cause significant burn-in, so a mixed used TV will not show any retention at all. In 3+ hours of mixed use viewing per day, you're going to get something like 10+ years out of your TV without any retention.
It's not about watching TV, it's about doing actual work. If the monitor is used for work, it should be expected that the monitor would get at least 8 hours of usage per day, with relatively static image. The mixed use case doesn't necessarily make things better, so long as on top of the mixed use you throw in the same amount of static image use. I too have seen burn in on older OLED phone screens after much less than 5000 hours. I've only seen OLED monitors in stores, way too much money for me. Until either the price drops, or there's conclusive evidence that these screens will last 10+ years with regular usage, I'm not jumping onboard. I've gotten a good 5+ years out of my screens in the past, which have all been IPS and a couple TN screens, or CRTs back in the day. I don't mind spending money on a screen when I know it will serve me faithfully for a long time.
While I hope you're right, and this is not a real problem, a lot of user comments out there indicate there's a problem with OLED burn in still, and it's probably inherent to the technology.
We are talking about monitors, not TVs. You should at least read the context properly before you attack people personally. I am not lying. You accusing me of tat just shows how fanatical you really are.
And you yourself even lie about the Rtings test. Since when are 2 weeks 5000+ hours? Wow... the audacity and hypocrisy...
I dunno, looking on their burn-in test, week 2 pictures I don't see any coloration at all. The red subpixel degrades fastest so you see some burn there that is invisible on other slides several weeks later (accounting for approx. If you could read you would notice rtings is not concerned with retention at all - and since they are one of the preeminent TV reviewers and have more scientific experience with OLEDs than practically anyone else on the Internet, I'll go with them over a typical Anandtech commentator (aka: a simpleton possessing 5% the intellect (at best) of the guy writing the article)
You are lying. Otherwise, where is the class action lawsuit involving every OLED cell phone ever made? There isn't one. I don't even have retention of the always-on clock on my S7, which has been on the screen for (by estimate) over 20,000 hours.
It was quickly an issue on my laptop with a display that is less prone, that's why I asked.
Ran Acronis to image a new drive, no options to disable the screen or set a screen saver. After two 4 hour stints imaging the drive I had the Acronis window burned into my screen.
It cleared up after a few days, but IPS isn't even particularly bad about it, that's why I'm concerned about OLED.
I've been a fan of OLED for years now, but I really don't want to pick one up and have my family leave a screen paused or the system left on for hours, as happens frequently, and have that ruin my new TV.
If the image goes away after a few days then it's not burn-in. It's called image retention. A cleaner program (flashy pixels or static colors) can clean that up fast. Or it will just go away after some usage as in your case. Those generally are not problematic. I have those on my plasma TV all the time. Real image burn-in, which I also have on my plasma TV, are caused by poorly designed UI with ridiculously bright and high contrast colors and won't go away no matter what I've tried.
Completely overblown; IPS laptop is not OLED & AMOLED phone panels are completely different than OLED panels used for large displays. Especially for LG who dominant the large display OLED market but use a different process for their small OLED panel business. LG's small OLED panel business has actually struggled w/ QA issues & such vs. Samsung's.
Samsung Display are also ramping up their OLED production looking at the dominance of OLED in the high-end TV market given its obvious superior picture quality than QLED. Accordingly, the economies of scale will benefit all monitor buyers towards cheaper prices next year & beyond
> The factory will be operated by LG Display High-Tech China, a joint venture between LG Display and Guangzhou Development District, in which the former holds a 70% stake...
This is what it takes to do business in China. They will steal all of that IP and incorporate it into their own domestic TV production... where they will then own 100% stake of the market and LG will be watching on the sidelines.
"I wish all the countries would jump on board about IP THEFT!"
then start with Red Blood America!!! if all those patriots hadn't stolen all those patented inventions from the Brits in the 19th century, the USofA would still be a third world country exporting food stuffs. wait a minute.....
They all "jump on board about IP THEFT" as they all do it. Do you think all of South Korea today was purely built on homegrown innovation and development?
It's cyclical. The US took from Europe. Japan took from the US. Taiwan took from Japan/US. SK from Taiwan/Japan/US. And now China from all those. Next up guess what countries like Vietnam and India are going to do as there is now push to develop those countries?
By the way there was almost a similar level of sentiment against Japan in the 80s in the US as there is now. The reason SK and Taiwan gets ignored as due to other reason they are a limited overall threat to US hegemony.
From a tribal point of view there is benefits to push the American agenda (well kind of, I'm not sure if the current path is actually beneficial to the average American, but that's a separate political debate). The moral argument is pretty weak, everyone's doing it to their own benefit. Gold old American semiconductor companies Micron and Intel for instance are at odds currently regarding IP theft.
Since China steals IP (just like the Japanese used to do during their growth boom, i.e. post-WW2, decades, let's not forget; it was said that "they copied everything") it cannot complain about their own IP being stolen.
I totally agree with Ashlay. There is no such thing as stealing an idea. There is copying, imitatition. But those things dont create scarcity. If o copy your idea, you still have it.
You say this now, but imagine you had a multimillion pound idea, and I overheard you saying it. And then the next day you seen your product on your local store shelves and people putting into their basket.
Don't kid us that you'd just shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, no such thing as stealing an idea", and then toddle off home all smiles.
Well, then i would be dumb for being lazy to not put my idea to serve the consumers and if someone else could master my super original idea better than me, congrats to them.
See, that’s the thing, one must earn money by serving the consumers, not by bragging that it has a patent granted by some bureau that gives me the right to other people property for 20 years.
So... My company spends millions of dollars developing new technology. We get it to the market priced to recoup R&D costs as well as generate a profit in order to fund the next great new technology.
Another company pays an IP thief or reverse engineers our product. They've saved millions by not having to pay scientists, engineers, prototyping, etc to R&D the product. Thanks to this "shortcut," they can sell their product for less than ours.
This "all or nothing" approach to information freedom is simple-minded. There are some cases where IP theft causes little harm. There are some cases where IP theft causes great harm. When a ton of money is dumped into developing something new, they should be protected. The protection decreases the risk of investing in new technology by increasing the likelihood of turning a profit. IP theft squeezes out the true innovators by profiting off someone else's work.
Innovation costs money. IP ensures adequate return on R&D investment. Without investment and money, there's no innovation. Theft of IP means death of innovation.
If you are going to flat call somebody wrong, you should give your reasoning for doing so. You called out history, so at least provide some examples. As it is, I don't even know what you are saying is wrong. Do you disagree that innovation costs money? Perhaps you don't believe that IP can ensure return on investment. I could see you saying the theft of IP doesn't mean the death of innovation, but you didn't say that. Perhaps you believe all of those statements to be wrong. Or maybe boeush has historically been wrong and your comment had little to do with the actual post. I can provide plenty of historical examples of how innovation required extremely large investments, but to do so would be pointless as it probably won't be addressing your point.
not too sure that it's happening in compute tech, but just pay attention to pHarma, where 'innovation' amounts to teeny weeny changes to patented stuff just to extend said patents. if there's going to be any effort to rein in patents (for all) that's where it'll come from.
I'm sure it is a little more complicated than you or I understand, but everything I've seen and read suggests this is exactly what is happening in this industry. It is probably a good example of an abuse of the patent system that the system itself was not designed to prevent. Many patent systems are designed under the assumption that the people using it are proper innovators only looking to protect their investments and further fuel their innovations. They aren't made to prevent patent trolls or stop people from sitting on a single innovation and forcing royalties from any who wish to continue innovating. Also, the level of detail required to be call an innovation is often trivial, but most systems don't provide an adequate way to differentiate true innovation from the next logical step or functions provided by an auxiliary advancement in technology. I digress.
@FunBunny2: "name one person who got smarter by being paid more."
Want to find the most efficient way to get the job done? Give it to the laziest person on the crew. The point is, I find that the most innovative people are rarely the smartest. More often they are simply smart enough with an incentive to improve something (often times out of laziness) and with access to the necessary tools and resources to do so. Which brings me to my point: the smartest silicon designers in the world could not have created silicon microprocessors without ... SILICON. Inventing, innovating, and improving process technologies at the molecular and atomic level also requires the necessary tools to implement, measure, and evaluate. Putting these ideas into practice requires even more tools and resources (raw or processed materials).
Many ideas in the microprocessor industry were thought of decades ago, but were beyond the (at the time) current technology to be implemented effectively if at all. As technology advanced, some of these ideas became practical, but implementation frequently deviates from how it was originally envisioned. Oh, and did I mention that it takes MONEY to buy these tools and resources and employ people to continue working on technology advancements to get to the point where you could implement the idea.
Now consider that sometimes things don't work out (I.E. Intel's original foray into 10nm). It is hard to justify investing large quantities of money into projects with a high chance of failure if there is a high probability that someone else will receive the benefits. Remember, the people funding the projects are rarely the people responsible for the actual innovation. They are extremely concerned about return on investment.
" Putting these ideas into practice requires even more tools and resources (raw or processed materials)."
those are engineering concerns, not, strictly speaking IP or innovation. engineering doesn't innovate, only digs up some more of God's Laws. it's hubris to claim 'innovation' when it was God who actually did it. Mendeleev didn't invent the periodic table, even if he's widely credited with it. God built the elements and in such a way that they had 'family' characteristics. most everything in science and engineering isn't 'invented' by humans, but merely dug out of the muck of time. and much of 'innovation' was by accident; for this some human should be rich and have power over the rest of us?
I agree that innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum. In addition to getting inspiration from others, I'll add that new innovations can enable other innovations (similar to your mating of ideas comment).
It is also undeniable that an inexcusable amount of money that should be funding R&D gets redirected to the legal departments of many companies.
However, I don't see how that invalidates the idea that innovation costs money or that lack of any protection could have an undesirable effect on the pace of innovation. Consider that the people funding the kind of innovations that have a legal team behind them are rarely the people who are doing the actual innovating. These people are extremely concerned about return on investment.
That said, the appropriate level of protection is certainly debatable and I don't know of a single system (or lack there of) out there that hasn't been abused.
"However, I don't see how that invalidates the idea that innovation costs money or that lack of any protection could have an undesirable effect on the pace of innovation."
there was a time, in the lifetimes of some still alive, when most 'innovation' was sponsored by the Damn Gummint and academia, and the fruits of that 'innovation' was part of the Public Capital. general growth of the economy and society was much greater than it's been since all that has been sequestered by Corporations. be careful what you wish for.
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. linux.
I'm not sure where you have been looking, but LG OLEDs have plummeted in price, with both 55" B8, C8 & E8 series going for under $1000 and 65" B8s going for $1400 & C8s $1650 at one point recently. The latest C9s have been as low as $1900 the past few years. All these prices were from authorized dealers, though LG still will honor warranties bought from non-authorized dealers. Regardless, this is good news for consumers.
No, we have the stock market and venture capital for that. The Chinese are requiring that all foreign corporations go into 50/50 partnerships, as well as requiring forced technology transfers. The communist elites (made of about 12-13 families) are skimming the profit from these corps,and using the rest to build up their military instead of distributing it to the people. Lookup how much public housing China offers it's citizens in comparison with the USA or any other country for that matter.
And after a few years, China will dissolve the foreign companies 50% share and use their own technology (that was transferred) against them to compete in the global market.
China's market is in many metrics world's largest, that's why they could pull off this extortion, it depends on how many people (there's certainly no shortage) believe the short term profits are worth it or that they could somehow outsmart the CCP, they can't.
Either I'm the unluckiest consumer out here or I've had unbelievable misfortune with any of the LG flat panel displays and television sets. I've had a total of three (3) LG displays and none of them have lasted over 2+ years. As a result I've given up considering LG as a reliable flat panel display provider and instead gone with Samsung. At the end of the day when you cough up huge dollars you want reliability over the "latest and greatest" bells and whistles. Currently my oldest Samsung monitor is a 10+ year old 19-inch monitor which refuses to die or malfunction. Yes, LG displays are enticing however reliability is more important to me and counts heavily in my decisions to purchase
I think most companies have a run of bad panels (some worse than others). I haven't seen many LG TV sized LCD displays in person, but so far their OLED lineup has been surprisingly reliable in my limited experience of about a dozen sets including one of my own. I've probably seen a number of LG LCD panels in other manufactures' diplays, but I couldn't say for sure. On the other hand, I've had pretty bad luck with Samsung LCD TV sized panels. I've seen a couple dozen over the past five years with the same issue of panel splitting. This is where the LCD panel starts delaminating and you get top to bottom vertical lines of dead or stuck pixels. It's hard for me to even buy a TV anymore with all the failures I've seen from reputable manufacturers, so I hope my OLED keeps performing for me. Otherwise, I'll have to stick with my old Panasonic Plasma for a while (works well, but has a bit of glare in the sunlit environment that the OLED sits in). Of course I've seen many computer sized displays of varying quality based on LG IPS and Samsung PLS or VA type panels that were plenty reliable (some with over a decade of use).
I really hope this means more 55inch gaming monitors that correct the wrongs of Alienware's original attempt at one. Hopefully LG themselves release a 55inch OLED gaming monitor w/ TrueBlack 500 HDR, G-Sync, HDMI 2.1, USB4, & even perhaps Displayport 2.0.
With many gaming monitor companies needing to do that as a no-brainer, everybody wins (including skeptics of OLED, the prices of LCD gaming displays using MiniLED/QLED have to go down to not be DOA'd)
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
81 Comments
Back to Article
imaheadcase - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
That is a lot of TV. I own 2 x 55 LG OLED TV myself, the 55inch ones go on sale every christmas and its the strangest thing because unlike normal electronics they hardly go down in price. $1500 TV i bought almost 2 years ago is selling maybe $100 less than when i got it. lolI think really the only thing better on the newer ones is "HDR" and 120Hz panels? I assume the software is about the same, which is to say its pretty great. The magic remote is nice as well. Haven't researched the upgrades lately to see.
I'm guessing with this plant the costs will eventually make my TV see price drop though.
surt - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Displays are in for a slowdown as they approach the limits of our eyes. 5 years from now 8k, 240hz, 2nd-gen HDR displays will pretty much deliver what our eyes can absorb.crimsonson - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
I doubt it. Rec.2020 is not even the full human spectrum and most TV now can barely reach 80%.HDR has better chance but 1000 nite sustain 100% is still extremely difficult with one or 2 exception. Then again 1000 nuts 100% is a rarely necessary. But there are provisions for 2000, 4000 and even 10k nits.
Dunno if 5 years is enough to reach 2000 100%.
Resolution wise 4K is good enough considering viewing distance and screen size. You would need to be watching a 42” tv from >3ft away to see the difference from 4K to 8k
Kevin G - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Beyond 2000 sustained nits is verging on too bright for a display. I've seen some medical reference displays capable and the joke of nerds getting tans from bright displays feels like it could be true with those.As for migration to 8K, I could use it. I have three 27" 4K displays in a PLP setup that are about 24" away. So for computer monitors at least, 8K has clear benefits.
nathanddrews - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Spreadsheets for days.a5cent - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Not sure what "sustained" brightness is. If a measuring device would measure 2000 nits across the entire display for more than a fraction of a second, then yes, that would be completely ridiculous.2000 nits for localized peak brightness is completely reasonable however. On a sunny day, the reflections of light off a lake can reach 10'000 nits.
althaz - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Yes, but you can't look at that without sunglasses.Santoval - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
"Beyond 2000 sustained nits is verging on too bright for a display".Not in a sunlit or otherwise (artificially) bright room. It's indeed blinding bright in a dark room though.
0ldman79 - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
We need color and motion improvements, but honestly the difference between 1080p and 4K are limited, particularly if you're rendering a game at 4K and displaying at 1080p, looks amazing, occasionally better than native 4K.I'm all for better colors and framerates tho. 8K is just increasing processing requirements for little gain. Most people's eyesight is not as good as mine corrected and I can't see a lot of difference between 1080p and 4K, much less 8K.
I guess the higher resolution does give you more pixels to allow for the use of the higher color range tho.
lilkwarrior - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Downsampling 4K to 1080p is definitely not better than native 4K. You're bringing up what sounds to me a DPI issue that's more about what resolution you're rendering vs. your screen size.zinfamous - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
you mean less than, or x < 3ft away.It seems that everyone these days forgot, or never learned how to properly use the "crocodile's mouth." lol. "The crocodile eats the bigger number!"
0ldman79 - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
How bad is the risk of burn in?I've had issues with my IPS laptop, had several refurb AMOLED phones we returned due to burn in.
imaheadcase - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Burn in is not really a thing for newer displays, they have lots of features to prevent it. Unless you disable every energy savings feature and stuff on a display it will be fine or stare at static screen all the time.. never had a issue with it.Beaver M. - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Burn in is as alive as always.Their software features only decreases brightness and uses algorithms to make it a bit slower or less obvious.
More usage time = quicker burn in. Its that simple. LG even admitted that openly. It doesnt matter how often your turn it off after usage. It will still add up.
Theres a reason there are still no OLED monitors. And that is burn in. It would happen even quicker on them, and it already happens quick if you play games with HUDs or watch lots of news channels. On PCs you would see it in a matter of weeks.
s.yu - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
That doesn't make sense, IDK if there are OLED monitors but there certainly are laptop screens OLED, which are expected to at least last a couple of years with far higher difficulty of replacement than a monitor.wr3zzz - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
The main reason that there are no OLED desktop monitors is not burn-in but costs. Desktop monitors have one of the lowest profit margins in the business because it's super price sensitive. OLED simply cannot compete in price. OLED is however present in high end notebook because the ASP is high and panel makers can sell them in bulk rather than retail (much lower cost overhead).Another reason is production planning. Desktop monitors use panels from older gen flat panel plants when the size is no longer optimal for TV. No one has built a plant specifically for desktop panels in ages. There is hardly any old gen OLED plants, and whatever supply there is went into notebooks.
Beaver M. - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Laptops dont nearly see as much usage as desktop PCs.Plus the screens are too small (many dont notice it on their phones either) and if they are being used stationary, they often get an external screen plugged into it.
The monitor market is pretty huge. You know how I know and how that is generally defined? On the massive amount of different models. There are literally thousands of different models available right now. You think because some 27" gaming monitors cost up to 3k, as much as a very good 75" TV, it means the market isnt that huge? Everyone, incl. me, cried like little babies for OLED to finally arrive, because LCD has so many drawbacks. But then reality and its burn in arrived, and it was even obvious to the manufacturers, that it wouldnt go well, even though they already scam people quite audaciously with their high priced gaming monitors.
Zoolook13 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
There are OLED monitors, not many but there hasn't been any panels to use, LG doesn't make their panels below 55" and of course there has been a huge production of smaller panels for phones but not in the 20"-34" range.Now however production is beginning to scale up with laptop and normal desktop size panels, but it's coming from smaller to bigger. Give it a few years.
Ajarjay - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Having owned three of LG’s oleds, and currently using a second one for PC photo editing and gaming, I can’t agree with you. My two year old sets have no signs of burn in that I can detect in normal usage and the picture is still markedly better than any lcd based TVs I have seen to date. I have watched all the videos on burn in and I know it can be an issue with heavy usage of certain types of content, but with my mixed usage and 15 hours a week of usage, they seem to be holding up perfectly and the benefits of OLEDs far outweigh the risks of burn in.Most of these comments seem to come from people who don’t own OLEDs, who have read about burn in, but who never have actually had any real work problems with OLED burn in. I’ve yet to read a single comment of someone who claims to have significant burn in related issues for normal average use case scenarios, so I think the problem is a bit overblown. I personally think the perfect blacks and excellent color are worth it to the point that, even if I had to buy one every three years, which does not appear to be the case, I am happy to keep doing so for the benefits which are sizeable.
Beaver M. - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Gotta love these comments... 15 hours a week of usage... cute. As much as mine does sometimes a day.As Ive said before, I was a huge OLED fanboy once. I had 4 phones with OLED which ALL had burn in, some even after only a few weeks. Ive owned 2 different LG OLED TVs and seen several times as many from other users in real life and they ALL had burn in.
Its always the same with you guys. You claim you have no burn in, but when pointed out in person, you deny it or say its not that bad.
The "30 fps is enough" people of modern times...
temps - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
First off, you watch way too much TV - get a lifeSecond off, enough with the anecdotes - especially when it comes to your phones, because you are simply lying.
Rtings has a real world OLED burn in test. It took 5,000+ hours of truly static viewing time to cause significant burn-in, so a mixed used TV will not show any retention at all. In 3+ hours of mixed use viewing per day, you're going to get something like 10+ years out of your TV without any retention.
niva - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
It's not about watching TV, it's about doing actual work. If the monitor is used for work, it should be expected that the monitor would get at least 8 hours of usage per day, with relatively static image. The mixed use case doesn't necessarily make things better, so long as on top of the mixed use you throw in the same amount of static image use. I too have seen burn in on older OLED phone screens after much less than 5000 hours. I've only seen OLED monitors in stores, way too much money for me. Until either the price drops, or there's conclusive evidence that these screens will last 10+ years with regular usage, I'm not jumping onboard. I've gotten a good 5+ years out of my screens in the past, which have all been IPS and a couple TN screens, or CRTs back in the day. I don't mind spending money on a screen when I know it will serve me faithfully for a long time.While I hope you're right, and this is not a real problem, a lot of user comments out there indicate there's a problem with OLED burn in still, and it's probably inherent to the technology.
s.yu - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
WOLEDs have less burn in than RGB OLEDs, RGB OLEDs no longer receive major complaints on a phone's use pattern throughout its lifetime.Beaver M. - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
We are talking about monitors, not TVs. You should at least read the context properly before you attack people personally.I am not lying. You accusing me of tat just shows how fanatical you really are.
And you yourself even lie about the Rtings test. Since when are 2 weeks 5000+ hours?
Wow... the audacity and hypocrisy...
temps - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I dunno, looking on their burn-in test, week 2 pictures I don't see any coloration at all. The red subpixel degrades fastest so you see some burn there that is invisible on other slides several weeks later (accounting for approx. If you could read you would notice rtings is not concerned with retention at all - and since they are one of the preeminent TV reviewers and have more scientific experience with OLEDs than practically anyone else on the Internet, I'll go with them over a typical Anandtech commentator (aka: a simpleton possessing 5% the intellect (at best) of the guy writing the article)You are lying. Otherwise, where is the class action lawsuit involving every OLED cell phone ever made? There isn't one. I don't even have retention of the always-on clock on my S7, which has been on the screen for (by estimate) over 20,000 hours.
0ldman79 - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
It was quickly an issue on my laptop with a display that is less prone, that's why I asked.Ran Acronis to image a new drive, no options to disable the screen or set a screen saver. After two 4 hour stints imaging the drive I had the Acronis window burned into my screen.
It cleared up after a few days, but IPS isn't even particularly bad about it, that's why I'm concerned about OLED.
I've been a fan of OLED for years now, but I really don't want to pick one up and have my family leave a screen paused or the system left on for hours, as happens frequently, and have that ruin my new TV.
wr3zzz - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
If the image goes away after a few days then it's not burn-in. It's called image retention. A cleaner program (flashy pixels or static colors) can clean that up fast. Or it will just go away after some usage as in your case. Those generally are not problematic. I have those on my plasma TV all the time. Real image burn-in, which I also have on my plasma TV, are caused by poorly designed UI with ridiculously bright and high contrast colors and won't go away no matter what I've tried.samerakhras - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
very bad ... if there is a channel logo at the corner and it does not have animation it will burn in.make sure you configure the OLE TV to auto sleep after 2 hours. or you will regret it
lilkwarrior - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Completely overblown; IPS laptop is not OLED & AMOLED phone panels are completely different than OLED panels used for large displays. Especially for LG who dominant the large display OLED market but use a different process for their small OLED panel business. LG's small OLED panel business has actually struggled w/ QA issues & such vs. Samsung's.Samsung Display are also ramping up their OLED production looking at the dominance of OLED in the high-end TV market given its obvious superior picture quality than QLED. Accordingly, the economies of scale will benefit all monitor buyers towards cheaper prices next year & beyond
reddog007 - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
The 55" B8 and even C8 can found for $1000 pretty easily.samerakhras - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
led are bad, they burn inwrkingclass_hero - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
I'd sure hope the OLED plant would be over 55 inches!ozzuneoj86 - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Well, they came from a 55" tall plant growing out of the ground, that would really explain the O in OLED wouldn't it?jwcalla - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
> The factory will be operated by LG Display High-Tech China, a joint venture between LG Display and Guangzhou Development District, in which the former holds a 70% stake...This is what it takes to do business in China. They will steal all of that IP and incorporate it into their own domestic TV production... where they will then own 100% stake of the market and LG will be watching on the sidelines.
AshlayW - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
IP holds back Innovation :)Unpopular opinion: the Chinese can access the tech and improve on it, without forking out money to the greedy capitalist pigs of the US and Europe xD
RamIt - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
So you are saying that its ok to steal china's IP. Fuck china. I wish all the countries would jump on board about IP THEFT!FunBunny2 - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
"I wish all the countries would jump on board about IP THEFT!"then start with Red Blood America!!! if all those patriots hadn't stolen all those patented inventions from the Brits in the 19th century, the USofA would still be a third world country exporting food stuffs. wait a minute.....
limitedaccess - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
They all "jump on board about IP THEFT" as they all do it. Do you think all of South Korea today was purely built on homegrown innovation and development?It's cyclical. The US took from Europe. Japan took from the US. Taiwan took from Japan/US. SK from Taiwan/Japan/US. And now China from all those. Next up guess what countries like Vietnam and India are going to do as there is now push to develop those countries?
By the way there was almost a similar level of sentiment against Japan in the 80s in the US as there is now. The reason SK and Taiwan gets ignored as due to other reason they are a limited overall threat to US hegemony.
From a tribal point of view there is benefits to push the American agenda (well kind of, I'm not sure if the current path is actually beneficial to the average American, but that's a separate political debate). The moral argument is pretty weak, everyone's doing it to their own benefit. Gold old American semiconductor companies Micron and Intel for instance are at odds currently regarding IP theft.
Santoval - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Since China steals IP (just like the Japanese used to do during their growth boom, i.e. post-WW2, decades, let's not forget; it was said that "they copied everything") it cannot complain about their own IP being stolen.Vitor - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
I totally agree with Ashlay. There is no such thing as stealing an idea. There is copying, imitatition. But those things dont create scarcity. If o copy your idea, you still have it.Oliseo - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
You say this now, but imagine you had a multimillion pound idea, and I overheard you saying it.And then the next day you seen your product on your local store shelves and people putting into their basket.
Don't kid us that you'd just shrug your shoulders and go "oh well, no such thing as stealing an idea", and then toddle off home all smiles.
Because that's BS.
imaheadcase - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
No its not BS. You simply had a idea and didn't get it to market faster than him. Also in that case you said its totally legal.Vitor - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Well, then i would be dumb for being lazy to not put my idea to serve the consumers and if someone else could master my super original idea better than me, congrats to them.See, that’s the thing, one must earn money by serving the consumers, not by bragging that it has a patent granted by some bureau that gives me the right to other people property for 20 years.
Beaver M. - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Of course there is stealing an idea. But only in a competition. Do you seriously think we dont have competitions?Jorsher - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
So... My company spends millions of dollars developing new technology. We get it to the market priced to recoup R&D costs as well as generate a profit in order to fund the next great new technology.Another company pays an IP thief or reverse engineers our product. They've saved millions by not having to pay scientists, engineers, prototyping, etc to R&D the product. Thanks to this "shortcut," they can sell their product for less than ours.
This "all or nothing" approach to information freedom is simple-minded. There are some cases where IP theft causes little harm. There are some cases where IP theft causes great harm. When a ton of money is dumped into developing something new, they should be protected. The protection decreases the risk of investing in new technology by increasing the likelihood of turning a profit. IP theft squeezes out the true innovators by profiting off someone else's work.
boeush - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Innovation costs money. IP ensures adequate return on R&D investment. Without investment and money, there's no innovation. Theft of IP means death of innovation.imaheadcase - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
History shows you are wrong.BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
If you are going to flat call somebody wrong, you should give your reasoning for doing so. You called out history, so at least provide some examples. As it is, I don't even know what you are saying is wrong. Do you disagree that innovation costs money? Perhaps you don't believe that IP can ensure return on investment. I could see you saying the theft of IP doesn't mean the death of innovation, but you didn't say that. Perhaps you believe all of those statements to be wrong. Or maybe boeush has historically been wrong and your comment had little to do with the actual post. I can provide plenty of historical examples of how innovation required extremely large investments, but to do so would be pointless as it probably won't be addressing your point.quorm - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Innovation does cost money, but the incentive to innovate is to make a better product and increase profit. IP does not ensure a return on R&D.FunBunny2 - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
"Innovation does cost money"not too sure that it's happening in compute tech, but just pay attention to pHarma, where 'innovation' amounts to teeny weeny changes to patented stuff just to extend said patents. if there's going to be any effort to rein in patents (for all) that's where it'll come from.
BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I'm sure it is a little more complicated than you or I understand, but everything I've seen and read suggests this is exactly what is happening in this industry. It is probably a good example of an abuse of the patent system that the system itself was not designed to prevent. Many patent systems are designed under the assumption that the people using it are proper innovators only looking to protect their investments and further fuel their innovations. They aren't made to prevent patent trolls or stop people from sitting on a single innovation and forcing royalties from any who wish to continue innovating. Also, the level of detail required to be call an innovation is often trivial, but most systems don't provide an adequate way to differentiate true innovation from the next logical step or functions provided by an auxiliary advancement in technology. I digress.FunBunny2 - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
"Innovation costs money."name one person who got smarter by being paid more.
RBFL - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Money doesn't make people smarter but applying more time and effort to a problem does cost more.It also typically involves a level of failure, market development,... which are also expensive.
Ideas may be cheap but developing real products is not.
BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
@FunBunny2: "name one person who got smarter by being paid more."Want to find the most efficient way to get the job done? Give it to the laziest person on the crew. The point is, I find that the most innovative people are rarely the smartest. More often they are simply smart enough with an incentive to improve something (often times out of laziness) and with access to the necessary tools and resources to do so. Which brings me to my point: the smartest silicon designers in the world could not have created silicon microprocessors without ... SILICON. Inventing, innovating, and improving process technologies at the molecular and atomic level also requires the necessary tools to implement, measure, and evaluate. Putting these ideas into practice requires even more tools and resources (raw or processed materials).
Many ideas in the microprocessor industry were thought of decades ago, but were beyond the (at the time) current technology to be implemented effectively if at all. As technology advanced, some of these ideas became practical, but implementation frequently deviates from how it was originally envisioned. Oh, and did I mention that it takes MONEY to buy these tools and resources and employ people to continue working on technology advancements to get to the point where you could implement the idea.
Now consider that sometimes things don't work out (I.E. Intel's original foray into 10nm). It is hard to justify investing large quantities of money into projects with a high chance of failure if there is a high probability that someone else will receive the benefits. Remember, the people funding the projects are rarely the people responsible for the actual innovation. They are extremely concerned about return on investment.
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
" Putting these ideas into practice requires even more tools and resources (raw or processed materials)."those are engineering concerns, not, strictly speaking IP or innovation. engineering doesn't innovate, only digs up some more of God's Laws. it's hubris to claim 'innovation' when it was God who actually did it. Mendeleev didn't invent the periodic table, even if he's widely credited with it. God built the elements and in such a way that they had 'family' characteristics. most everything in science and engineering isn't 'invented' by humans, but merely dug out of the muck of time. and much of 'innovation' was by accident; for this some human should be rich and have power over the rest of us?
Vitor - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
False. Because innovation doesnt happen in a vacuum, everybody gets inspiration from everybody. Ideas love to "mate" with each other.Now those billions waste on courts for the most stupid IP, now that is money that is going to lawyers instead of actual R&D.
BurntMyBacon - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I agree that innovation doesn't happen in a vacuum. In addition to getting inspiration from others, I'll add that new innovations can enable other innovations (similar to your mating of ideas comment).It is also undeniable that an inexcusable amount of money that should be funding R&D gets redirected to the legal departments of many companies.
However, I don't see how that invalidates the idea that innovation costs money or that lack of any protection could have an undesirable effect on the pace of innovation. Consider that the people funding the kind of innovations that have a legal team behind them are rarely the people who are doing the actual innovating. These people are extremely concerned about return on investment.
That said, the appropriate level of protection is certainly debatable and I don't know of a single system (or lack there of) out there that hasn't been abused.
FunBunny2 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
"However, I don't see how that invalidates the idea that innovation costs money or that lack of any protection could have an undesirable effect on the pace of innovation."there was a time, in the lifetimes of some still alive, when most 'innovation' was sponsored by the Damn Gummint and academia, and the fruits of that 'innovation' was part of the Public Capital. general growth of the economy and society was much greater than it's been since all that has been sequestered by Corporations. be careful what you wish for.
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. linux.
uibo - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
What is the difference between 8.5G and 10.5G OLED-s?Add why would they give them names with .5-s?
s.yu - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Good question!Surfacround - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
size of the panel...Surfacround - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
sorry, size of the motherglass panel which they cut the TV panels fromuibo - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Thank you!Your answer lead me to this:
http://news.samsungdisplay.com/13671
Alistair - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
Still no 24" or 27" or even 40" models coming I guess.Gunbuster - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Even a 49" would be nice. I could make the trade off and risk of burn in but nope, my desk can only fit 49"/50" width.jmunjr - Saturday, August 31, 2019 - link
I'm not sure where you have been looking, but LG OLEDs have plummeted in price, with both 55" B8, C8 & E8 series going for under $1000 and 65" B8s going for $1400 & C8s $1650 at one point recently. The latest C9s have been as low as $1900 the past few years. All these prices were from authorized dealers, though LG still will honor warranties bought from non-authorized dealers. Regardless, this is good news for consumers.Morawka - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
I get so sick of seeing these joint ventures with China's state-run corporations.Kvaern1 - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Not to mention seeing alle the +1 Emperor Xi socialcredit posts from the drones.imaheadcase - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Yah i'm so glad the USA doesn't help companies like auto industry and tech companies shore up better loans and give money. Terrible right? /sarcasmMorawka - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
No, we have the stock market and venture capital for that. The Chinese are requiring that all foreign corporations go into 50/50 partnerships, as well as requiring forced technology transfers. The communist elites (made of about 12-13 families) are skimming the profit from these corps,and using the rest to build up their military instead of distributing it to the people. Lookup how much public housing China offers it's citizens in comparison with the USA or any other country for that matter.Morawka - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
And after a few years, China will dissolve the foreign companies 50% share and use their own technology (that was transferred) against them to compete in the global market.s.yu - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Well put.s.yu - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
China's market is in many metrics world's largest, that's why they could pull off this extortion, it depends on how many people (there's certainly no shortage) believe the short term profits are worth it or that they could somehow outsmart the CCP, they can't.Lolimaster - Sunday, September 1, 2019 - link
Considering how pathetically expensive is microLED right now, specially for <100" sizes, LG will have like 5-10 years of milking.FXi - Monday, September 2, 2019 - link
Hoping they build a 40-44" size so we can put those OLED products into more spaces in our homes.SWong6 - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
Either I'm the unluckiest consumer out here or I've had unbelievable misfortune with any of the LG flat panel displays and television sets. I've had a total of three (3) LG displays and none of them have lasted over 2+ years. As a result I've given up considering LG as a reliable flat panel display provider and instead gone with Samsung. At the end of the day when you cough up huge dollars you want reliability over the "latest and greatest" bells and whistles. Currently my oldest Samsung monitor is a 10+ year old 19-inch monitor which refuses to die or malfunction. Yes, LG displays are enticing however reliability is more important to me and counts heavily in my decisions to purchaseBurntMyBacon - Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - link
I think most companies have a run of bad panels (some worse than others). I haven't seen many LG TV sized LCD displays in person, but so far their OLED lineup has been surprisingly reliable in my limited experience of about a dozen sets including one of my own. I've probably seen a number of LG LCD panels in other manufactures' diplays, but I couldn't say for sure. On the other hand, I've had pretty bad luck with Samsung LCD TV sized panels. I've seen a couple dozen over the past five years with the same issue of panel splitting. This is where the LCD panel starts delaminating and you get top to bottom vertical lines of dead or stuck pixels. It's hard for me to even buy a TV anymore with all the failures I've seen from reputable manufacturers, so I hope my OLED keeps performing for me. Otherwise, I'll have to stick with my old Panasonic Plasma for a while (works well, but has a bit of glare in the sunlit environment that the OLED sits in). Of course I've seen many computer sized displays of varying quality based on LG IPS and Samsung PLS or VA type panels that were plenty reliable (some with over a decade of use).lilkwarrior - Wednesday, September 4, 2019 - link
I really hope this means more 55inch gaming monitors that correct the wrongs of Alienware's original attempt at one. Hopefully LG themselves release a 55inch OLED gaming monitor w/ TrueBlack 500 HDR, G-Sync, HDMI 2.1, USB4, & even perhaps Displayport 2.0.With many gaming monitor companies needing to do that as a no-brainer, everybody wins (including skeptics of OLED, the prices of LCD gaming displays using MiniLED/QLED have to go down to not be DOA'd)
Zeno Ng - Saturday, February 8, 2020 - link
May I know this factory also build LG washer and fridge ?