Samsung Spins Off Display Unit; Spends $7B on Chip Plant

Status
Not open for further replies.

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]kaisellgren[/nom]I hope this spin off yields in new 27-30" 1440p/1600p models[/citation]

i dont want new, i want cheap. and i refuse 1440 i require 1600
 

Blessedman

Distinguished
May 29, 2001
577
0
18,980
0
A subsidiary. It's good that they did this, that company is just too large for just one board to control every aspect. Hopefully this allows then a little freedom to explore atypical displays.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]i dont want new, i want cheap. and i refuse 1440 i require 1600[/citation]

Well then you are happy with what's out there now, because there is plenty of cheap going on.

Okay, I get it, you are saying you want the price of 30" 2560x1600 monitors to come down, and you don't want a 16:9 display (2560x1440). I want those things a too, but for me, the 30" display, even at 2560x1600, has too large a pixel pitch; I want better displays with a higher pixel density, and better "refresh" rate than 60Hz.

Making them better doesn't necessarily mean making them more expensive; if Samsung and LG - and the rest of the panel makers - would concentrate on higher quality and mass-selling that, instead of the low-grade stuff they've been selling, prices would indeed be much lower for the kind of displays that cost more today.

Tablets and smart phones prove that higher pixel densities don't have to be expensive; true 120Hz monitors prove that 60Hz is simply a cheap standard arbitrarily agreed upon, not a real technological limitation. Let's get some 200+ DPI, 120Hz 30" panels going. Please.

;)
 

f-14

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
2,344
0
19,960
50
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]Display business isn't making a lot of money. I can see why Samsung did this.[/citation]
that has to do with being stuck in the 1080 p resolution which was blown by before it ever became available on dvds.
i had a 32" tube monitor with 1600x1200 back in 2003.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Well then you are happy with what's out there now, because there is plenty of cheap going on.Okay, I get it, you are saying you want the price of 30" 2560x1600 monitors to come down, and you don't want a 16:9 display (2560x1440). I want those things a too, but for me, the 30" display, even at 2560x1600, has too large a pixel pitch; I want better displays with a higher pixel density, and better "refresh" rate than 60Hz.Making them better doesn't necessarily mean making them more expensive; if Samsung and LG - and the rest of the panel makers - would concentrate on higher quality and mass-selling that, instead of the low-grade stuff they've been selling, prices would indeed be much lower for the kind of displays that cost more today.Tablets and smart phones prove that higher pixel densities don't have to be expensive; true 120Hz monitors prove that 60Hz is simply a cheap standard arbitrarily agreed upon, not a real technological limitation. Let's get some 200+ DPI, 120Hz 30" panels going. Please.[/citation]

they sell those phones at over 3x the base cost.
if a screen is better than what is already out, and its a specialty item (2560x1600 is specialty at this point) they charge more than whats already out there.

the quality increase will come from either crystal displays (i believe thats what the displays that use actual leds are called) or oled going out of the phone market.

i dont need lcd to increase in quality, as i just see them as a stop gap at this time, just give use the 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors for under 600$ and i will be happy.
 

agnickolov

Distinguished
Aug 10, 2006
520
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]that has to do with being stuck in the 1080 p resolution which was blown by before it ever became available on dvds.i had a 32" tube monitor with 1600x1200 back in 2003.[/citation]
For that matter, I had 2048x1536 CRT in 2004... I didn't use it at such resolution of course, that was 60Hz, e.g. strong flicker on CRT. I think I ran it at 1600x1200 too (85Hz IIRC).
 

kronos_cornelius

Distinguished
Nov 4, 2009
365
0
18,780
0
This news reminds me. Whatever happens to all the Patents and the engineering know-how on designing and manufacturing Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Monitors ?

Remember when it was truly the latest in technology to have a flat screen monitor. Not thing flat, but with no curvature on the screen ?

I am reminded because Samsung is starting to jettison the LCD business to focus on OLED
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS