This one is the best. It's one of those "look how smart I am" comments that fundamentally betrays an actual lack of understanding about a given tech. OLED monitors will never hit the same peak brightness at the same screen size as backlit monitors, how in the hell would you think other wise?
I'm not sure you understand the tech that well, either. Power delivery is the main problem. Why else do you think an LG C1 OLED can sustain over 700 nits in a small white box anywhere but drops to 130 nits when that box expands to the full display? Heck, decent OLED phone displays have been able to sustain 600 nits over a full 6" diagonal for years, right?
Phones and TVs currently use completely different OLED designs (and the recent QD-OLED is different once again). Samsung phone OLEDs are directly emissive in RGB, while LG's TV OLEDs are white emissive and then statically filtered in alternating WRGB similar to LCDs. This is cheaper but obviously less efficient and less durable for the same brightness, yet accomplishes the infinite contrast bit. LED backlighting, as everyone knows, loses half its light going through polarization and then another 2/3 through the color filters, and while the efficiency/longevity of basic white LED is so far ahead that it overcomes these major losses, the maximum brightness whether over a small section or over the full screen becomes the same, as the backlight is always on.
Despite all this, current OLED TV tech is plenty adequate to achieve, say, 500 nits full screen, which if you bother to check, most cheap LCD TVs cannot do. The annoying 130 or 150 nits ABL when trying to use OLED TVs as a monitor is because of skimping on the power delivery. The panel is already much more expensive than LED/LCD; manufacturers are reticent to add several hundred $ just for a beefy power supply, frontal anode, and all the required airflow for the panel to conduct hundreds of amps without overheating.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram