snakeyes11 // I'm a big social media enthusiast. I love to share newsarticles on Goolge reader, I like to express myself on Twitter and Facebook. Which can both be found on my Posterous page. I love computers, sports, outdoors, biking.
LG announces 55-inch OLED HDTV, looks good enough for an Apple Television
January 1, 2012 at 5:35 pm
Various reports throughout the year claimed LG is providing the television behind the Apple HDTV. However, nothing conclusive has surfaced.
As far as the big display makers are concerned, Apple’s relationship with LG is probably the strongest. LG makes iPod Touch and iPhone Retina Displays, some iPad displays, and Apple secured a $500 million dollar investment in LG displays in 2009. The net investment was a temporary exclusive on panels for the 27-inch display that Apple’s iMacs and Thunderbolt Displays now use. Sony also makes OLEDs, but it does not have a strong relationship with Apple – at least as far as displays are concerned. The other big OLED maker is Samsung, and it is currently tangled with Apple in patent disputes.
With that said, look at the things that will be shown at the Consumer Electronic show. They have a 4 mm bezel -that is half the thickness of an iPhone 4S- and weighs in at a paltry 16.5-pounds. In addition, things like “1,000 times faster than LED/LCD displays” and “infinite contrast ratio” makes this sound like one of the best displays of 2012.
(Full sized images and the press release are below.):
WORLD’S LARGEST OLED TV FROM LG OFFERS MORE REALISTIC COLORS, BRIGHTER PICTURE, FASTER SPEED
LG Unveils Much Anticipated 55-inch OLED TV for First Time at CES 2012
SEOUL, Jan. 2, 2012 – LG Electronics (LG) will present the future of TV technology at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas with the unveiling of the world’s largest OLED TV with a display size of 55 inches. By incorporating the company’s 4-Color Pixels and Color Refiner features with LG Display’s advanced OLED (organic light-emitting diode) panels, LG OLED TV generates the most natural colors of any TV set at a much lower price point than could have been achieved using the standard manufacturing process.
“Working closely with LG Display, we have a product which not only delivers on all the advantages of OLED over LCD but at a significantly lower cost than what could be achieved using existing OLED manufacturing technologies,” said Havis Kwon, President and CEO of LG Electronics Home Entertainment Company. “OLED is clearly the future of home TV entertainment and LG is very focused on making this exciting technology as easy as possible for consumers to embrace.”
What sets LG’s TV picture apart from other OLED TVs is 4-Color Pixels and Color Refiner which work together to generate natural and accurate colors that are sharp and consistent. The 4-Color Pixels feature allows for more accurate color depiction by using a set of four colors (red, green blue and white) in comparison to the RGB setup used by other OLED TV manufacturers. Color Refiner ensures consistency in colors from a wider viewing angle via an LG algorithm which improves and refines hues and tones. This is in contrast to other OLED TVs which often exhibit drastic changes in hues from different viewing angles and abnormal color gamut.
Boasting an infinite contrast ratio, LG’s OLED TV exhibits vivid colors and the smallest details regardless of the overall luminance of the on-screen image. In turn, colors and details throughout an entire image are preserved with utmost clarity and sharpness, even when displaying scenes with dark lighting. Such color capabilities are technically impossible with LED and LCD display panels. And at 1,000 times faster than LED/LCD displays, LG’s OLED TV shows crystal clear motion without any blurring or bleeding.
And LG’s OLED TV is as aesthetically pleasing as it is technologically sophisticated. LG’s Slim and Narrow Bezel design gives the TV a sleek, minimal look and at only 4 mm thin and a mere 7.5 kg, LG’s OLED TV practically blends into the wall.
# # #
Related Stories on 9to5Mac
- Apple looking at 55-inch LG OLED displays for late 2012 Apple Television?
- Analyst: First Apple HDTV will be integrated into next-gen iMacs (unlikely)
- Analysts: Apple prototyping television set for a 2012 launch, but it won't come cheap
- Apple's HDTV project being headed by iTunes creator Jeff Robbin
- CES: iPhone-controlled HDTV mounts are go
Recent Stories on 9to5Mac
- Apple reportedly planning late-January event in New York, media to be the focus
- iPhones beat out Nokia Lumia 800 Windows Phone in browser benchmark, despite earlier reports
- Apple’s ‘GameStore’ in-app purchase testing tool appears in App Store
- Samsung steals iPhone ad actress for Galaxy Tab commercial
- LG announces 55-inch OLED HDTV, looks good enough for an Apple Television
You're really grasping at straws relating this to Apple and a possible Apple TV set (which I am fairly confident in saying will NOT happen unless we have some major paradigm shift in how we make TV's). Everything you people want is easily done with the existing Apple TV set top box, it's just a software update away. The problem isn't the TV, it's the content and how you get it on there and interact with finding it and so on. I wish these rumours would just go away, they're ridiculous and make no financial (or logical) sense.I hope Apple saves its savvy for a good (first?) 4k 'tv'. Not yestertech 1080anything.The set is downright gorgeous.But if LG was really making the hardware for Apple's first ever HDTV I don't see how Apple would allow LG to release a set that looks similar to what they may be releasing. Sure the software under the hood will make all the difference but if this set is already out there wouldn't be anything aesthetically different about this set and Apple's set.
Then again, my guess is all the manufacturers are working on bezel-less displays.
i want one of those! the GIRL THAT IS HAHAHAHA!my mba is thin but doesn't flex/break. Why wouldn't that be possible with the tv?You can't break OLED screens. You can drop it and nothing would happen. That's why the military uses it.So now we have this ridiculous rumor mill concern Steve Jobs saying he has solved the TV for the masses. Now any possible copartners product could be envisioned as "AppleTV" solution.We all know that Apple while very good at some things is not good at everything. They are the masters of creating a artistic somewhat expensive computer or smart device, but that is focused on that niche. The chief problem with tackling the home video market is that USA customers are used to a subscription model and just need whats good enough to interest them. No matter how impressive a HDTV is with a iOS interface as a possibility, consumers don't want that, they just want to turn on a box and watch one of the many networks that offers content. The box preferably should be cheap, very cheap. This means that Apple would have to compete with every other means of which consumers watch live shows and sporting events. So how are they going to pull that off?
Man, they really could not have used worse pictures to show this thing off.No mention of price. I read elsewhere that this set costs in excess of 5K. Just a bit out of most peoples price range.I don't see Apple doing their own TV. They might, but I just don't see it.I do see them partnering with someone like LG though to make an LG flatscreen "powered by Apple iOS". These sets would be sold through LG's current retail channels as well as directly from Apple. Let LG do what they do best and Apple can do what it does best all the while leveraging not only LG's expertise and existing patent portfolios but also their retail capabilities.
Oh and that 55 inch set is gorgeous!
I won't trust OLEDs until they fix the lifespan issues on blue pixels.As much as I like to have this TV, I don't feel safe with it. A TV that big but is only 4mm thick... would be extremely breakable. I'm afraid it'll shatter before it even makes it into my living room. Will this be 2mm gorilla glass on both sides? Where will all the TV components be? How about inputs?Post a new comment
Comments by IntenseDebate
This would be awesome.
After months of near silence, Microsoft is starting to talk publicly about Windows 8. Earlier this week the company started a new "Building Windows 8" blog, and Windows Live Division President Steven Sinofsky provided the first concrete information about the operating system in a post on Wednesday.
The post gives a high-level overview of how Windows 8's development is organized and the different feature areas the teams are working on. Most of these, such as "Kernel Platform," "Networking Core," and "Performance," held no surprises, but a few of the teams are more interesting. One is called "App Store," which confirms the rumor that Windows 8 will include an application store feature—there were slides leaked last year that made mention of a Windows Store. As with any as-yet-unreleased product, nothing is set in stone, but this information makes it all but certain that such a store will be a part of Windows 8.
Also of interest was the "Hyper-V" team. Leaked alpha builds of Windows 8 appear to include the Hyper-V virtualization platform—hitherto found only in server variants of the operating system—and the presence of this team would seem to confirm that Hyper-V virtualization is now a feature of the Windows client operating system too. However, as Sinofsky notes in the post, "some features are built in the core OS but are ultimately only part of the Server product." The possibility remains that Hyper-V will be one of those features.
The team listing also includes a XAML team, confirming the leaked e-mail announcing that XAML—the XML-based user interface language that's currently used in both .NET and Silverlight—was now being developed by the Windows team, and not by Microsoft's developer tools division.
Exactly three years ago to the day, when Windows 7 was in development, Sinofsky made a similar post on the Engineering 7 blog, highlighting how the structure of the two operating systems is very different. Sinofsky's Windows 8 post lists 35 teams, and mentions that there are others (including Internet Explorer) that are not a direct part of the Windows 8 team. Windows 7 had just 23, including the one responsible for Microsoft's Web browser.
The Windows 8 organization includes many more groups dedicated to abstract user experiences rather than specific functional areas. While Windows 7 had a "Core User Experience" team, Windows 8 has "Core Experience Evolved," "Applications and Media Experience," "Devices & Networking Experience," and "User-Centered Experience." With Windows 7, the company tried to ensure that a single group would be responsible for providing "end-to-end" functionality—that is, both the underlying plumbing and the visible user interface. It looks like Windows 8 will take that further, with groups responsible for considering entire user experiences, even if they cut across multiple functional areas. This is a move that should result in operating system that better integrates disparate functional areas, and provides a smoother, more consistent experience.
Even though Windows 8 has more teams, several of the Windows 7 groups have no obvious counterpart. Windows 8 may have "Application and Media Experience" and "Media Platform," but unlike Windows 7, it doesn't have "Media Center." The latest Windows 8 betas appear to lack Media Center functionality too—all in all an ominous sign for an application that never really achieved mainstream appeal, but which was much loved by its devotees. Equally, the change might simply mean that the standalone Media Center application is no more, but its capabilities have been rolled into Windows 8's other media features.
This is the first installment in a new series recommending the best solid-state drives you can buy at any given budget level. With so many SSDs piling up, all based on the same few controllers, it’s time for us to start identifying the real winners.
Detailed solid state drive specifications and reviews are great—that is, if you have the time to do the research. However, at the end of the day, what an enthusiast needs is the best SSD within a certain budget.
So, if you don’t have the time to research the benchmarks, or if you don’t feel confident enough in your ability to pick the right drive, then fear not. We at Tom’s Hardware have come to your aid with a simple list of the best SSD offered for the money.
April Updates:
If you missed any of the SSD action, the scene recently started heating up again. SandForce decided to make its first public showing of its second-generation controller performance with OCZ’s Vertex 3 and Vertex 3 Pro. Both of these drives are impressive. In random read performance (using the 240 GB model), we saw transfer rates push past 500 MB/s. Although availability was initially spotty, the drives are now shipping in volume. Unfortunately, the pricing OCZ originally gave us was too ambitious, and its 240 and 120 GB drives are each selling for $50 more, at $549 and $299, respectively.
We also had the opportunity to wrap up a review of Intel's SSD 510 (previously code-named Elmcrest). In summary, the results are mixed. Intel's SSD 510-series uses a revised version of the Marvell controller seen on Crucial’s RealSSD C300. However, Intel optimized the SSD 510 for larger files. Sequential read performance is similar to the Vertex 3, but random data hits the 510 much harder. With regard to pricing, the SSD 510 series is tough to embrace. The 250 GB SSD 510 is currently selling for $615. That’s $2.46 per gigabyte (compared to $2.28 for OCZ's 240 GB Vertex 3).
To be fair, Intel really isn't known for its high-end SSD market presence any more. Its mainstream X25-M (G2) is responsible for most of the company's solid-state drive volume. Intel recently unveiled its third-gen mainstream design, known as the SSD 320. This is an update to X25-M with 25 nm NAND and a few other notable benefits. Intel is trying to make the point that it offers the highest reliability of any brand, and new features like power protection are intended to put prospective buyers' minds at ease. On the performance side, the SSD 320 achieves better sequential write and random write performance, thanks to its larger cache. However, the move to 25 nm comes at the cost of random read performance. This is a situation where the X25-M continues to outperform its successor. In that way, it reminds of us of the 25 nm Vertex 2s discussed in The OCZ Vertex 2 Conspiracy: Lost Space, Lost Speed?. But, to Intel's credit, the new model lineup sidesteps the capacity/performance-oriented criticisms that OCZ absorbed as a result of its not-so-transparent transition. But it's the price that really makes the SSD 320 series attractive. The 120 GB SSD 320 only costs $239, which is just below $2.00 per gigabyte.
Intel and OCZ aren't the only players on the block. Crucial's m4 is the 25 nm update to the C300, and it proves itself a worthy successor. Though the m4 suffers a bit in smaller-sized random reads compared to the C300, it offers better random write performance. At its best, it beats at least one of the Vertex 3s. Crucial's newest SSD also offers improved sequential performance, but only its sequential read performance nearly matches the Vertex 3s. If you're aiming for the fastest SSD, we'd consider the m4 a contender against OCZ's newest drives if Crucial can deliver the m4 under $2 per gigabyte. That's what Crucial is aiming for, but until we see drives in retail, we won't make a definitive recommendation.
Crucial m4 Expected MSRP 512 GB $999.99 256 GB $499.99 128 GB $249.99
While all of these launches make for great reading material, the most important news has nothing to do with the impressive performance of the latest SSDs. It has to do with prices. Price per gigabyte is, by far, the biggest factor preventing SSDs from enjoying more mainstream adoption. With the introduction of 25 nm flash, new products are starting to become more affordable. In turn, slower SSDs that were previously too expensive are more affordable, too.Some Notes About Our Recommendations
A few simple guidelines to keep in mind when reading this list:
- If you don't need to copy gigabytes of data quickly or load games in the blink of an eye, then there's nothing wrong with sticking with a mechanical hard drive. This list is intended for people who want the performance/responsiveness that SSDs offer, and operate on a specific budget.
- There are several criteria we use to rank SSDs. We try to evenly weigh performance and capacity at each price point and recommend what we believe to the best drive based on our own experiences, along with information garnered from other sites. Some people may only be concerned with performance, but that ignores the ever-present capacity conundrum that we often encounter when trying to balance SSD price with the other variables. If you have a mobile system, you can usually only have one drive installed. On a desktop system, you want room for your operating system and your more performance-sensitive apps. That's why we have to consider the major weight of capacity, too.
- Prices and availability change on a daily basis. Our picks will be valid the month of publication, but we can't make guarantees beyond that. SSD pricing is especially tight, and a $15 difference can be the reason why one SSD makes the list, while another does not. While you are shopping, use our list as a guide, but always double-check for yourself.
- The list is based on some of the best U.S. prices from online retailers. In other countries or at retail stores, your mileage will most certainly vary.
- These are new SSD prices. No used or open-box offers are in the list; they might represent a good deal, but it’s outside the scope of what we’re trying to do. (Don't forget that you have no way of knowing how many PE cycles are consumed with a used drive.)
Best prices for tested products
Again not my review, Tom's hardware review.
Who really is better?! Find out below.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/226150/mac_vs_pc_stereotypes_confirmed.html
Logging you in...
