Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sephr | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure that this is the best move in the long term. Mass produced phone-sized MicroLED screens should be ready by 2019, and MicroLED can be up to twice as efficient per lumen compared to OLED.

A large purchase of Samsung OLED displays would be a much more sensible move than an investment in manufacturing for a display tech which may not be around for long.

One explanation could be of necessity. Perhaps Google initially wanted to make a large purchase of Samsung or LG OLEDs, but neither may have the production capacity to fulfill the order. Samsung is already making 70-92 million OLED displays for a recent Apple order, and LG probably doesn't have the needed production capacity that Samsung already has at scale.

View on HN

Thanks for the reference to MicroLEDs, I've downloaded a bunch of stuff to catch up on them, I had not realized they had become a 'thing' as it were.

They are however a bit more speculative than OLED. I was looking at an LG OLED television in Fry's (just $6K :-)) and the contrast is really nice. I bet it really pops in a low light room as well. So an 'in production' house vs a 'production hopefully in a year' house seems the more prudent bet?

And the other interesting bit is everyone is thinking phone, phone, phone. Why not a competitor to Surface Hub which appears to be making Microsoft a solid margin? Why not have a 'Google' TV which is just that, the entire screen and everything that hangs on the wall. You talk to it with Google Home, it shows stuff from the Internet and boring old TV shoes etc. The first Google TV effort was pretty doomed but maybe as a way to augment your TV (new YouTube TV is out), your phone, and your general notes place? That might be Google thinking the long game there.

> MicroLED can be up to twice as efficient per lumen compared to OLED

Do you have sources for that?

To my knowledge, inorganic LEDs have the advantage now, but both technologies approach the same limits which means that in the long term both should deliver the same efficiency. In the long run I don't see a deciding difference here.

One major complication for OLEDs is processing and sealing because they tend to have a short lifetime for various reasons. This sounds simple but in practice it makes everything much more complicated.

If your reasoning (necessity) is on mark, I wonder if this is evidence of the monopsonistic jiu-jitsu that Apple is famous for.

Supply-chain dominance wielded as a weapon.

Right but you sti;ll need to secure OLED supplies until then because Apple is now buying 70+ million screens a year from Samsung.

I thought they couldn't purchase from Samsung because Apple bought out the supply.

I agree.

I feel this is just a sign Google is playing a bit of catch-up (maybe even a tiny bit of desperation) in getting curved OLED displays. There's only so much capacity available, with Samsung and Apple eating up most of what's coming out.

Even if a billion dollar check was cashed today, that will only bring online one plant, which won't be ready to ship products for a few months at best...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com