Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Hardware

Motorola Debuts Nano-Emissive Flat Screen 285

Posted by timothy
from the when-will-it-open-its-flower-to-us dept.
brain1 writes "PhysOrg is reporting that Motorola has developed a 5" flat-screen prototype display that uses carbon nanotubes. The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400. The technology uses standard color TV phosphors, has a response time equaling CRTs', all in a package 1/8" thick. The display characteristics meet or exceed CRTs', such as fast response time, wide viewing angle, and wide operation temperature. All these are areas that LCDs are weak in. Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motorola Debuts Nano-Emissive Flat Screen

Comments Filter:
  • Color palatte? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ackthpt (218170) *
    I've got a little battery powered DVD player [amazon.com] with letterbox screen, which is ok for hiding under the sheets and watching 1950's B-movie/horror flicks [imdb.com] or watching something other than the same tired movie you saw on the flight out to Timbuktu, but it's got rather poor available colors. Looks like 4096 or something sometimes.

    This technology would be decent if it addresses the aforementioned problems, but isn't much of an improvement if it looks blotchy (what is this called, banding?) where colors are simil

    • Ok, I'll bite - are you in the Boy Scouts, the Army or jail?

      Last time I did that it was comic books with a flashlight and I was 9....

      Not sure if it was intended, but thanks for the laugh. :-)
    • Methinks it is not B-movies and horror flicks that you don't want your mother to catch you watching...
  • A race to the finish (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moofdaddy (570503) * on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:55PM (#12482780) Homepage
    Looks like it's going to be a race to the finish line on who can bring us the cheapest HDTV and Flat panel technology. I read an article in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend which had quotes from the chief engineer of displays at Sony where he was talking about a break through processing system they are working on which they expect will drop the price by screen as much as 45%. What they weren't sure of is when it will be ready to roll out.

    The company I work for (DuPont) is working on a different avenue. We're persusing OLEDs to replace plasma and LCDs. We'll see how things go.
    • Race yes, finish no. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lheal (86013)
      They'll keep improving this stuff until we're all wearing XHDTV contacts or retinal implants or having our video directly beamed to the pleasure center ^W^W visual cortex.

      But you are correct that it will be fascinating to see if the technology stabilizes on a flat-screen format.
      • They'll keep improving this stuff until we're all wearing XHDTV contacts or retinal implants or having our video directly beamed to the pleasure center ^W^W visual cortex.

        Agreed. That's when a shift will be made to improve on mop and wetvac technology
      • Not a chance, they'll collude and release the new technology in drips and drabs in order to stretch out the upgrade cycle as long as possible. It's all money.

    • Last I read (which was admittedly a long while ago) OLEDs had 2 major problems, 1) blue, and 2) they have historically had a degradation problems over time. Losing luminosity. i dont know how this has progressed.
      • Last time I read a story about OLED I did not see a mention of blue problems... but losing as much as half the brightness over as little as a year can be somewhat of a problem for anything that is lit for a significant part of the year. IIRC, brightness degradation over the first three years was expected to be as bad as 80% of continuously lit.

        This was eight or so months ago and I am betting the 80% figure must have migrated to the fifth year by now... and probably beyond the seventh year by the time the f
  • Timeline? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by op12 (830015) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:56PM (#12482787) Homepage
    Sure, it sounds great. And there's even a working prototype and cost estimate for a 40" model. But how far off is that possibility? No mention in the article.
    • Re:Timeline? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nacturation (646836)
      No mention in the article.

      Of course not... it's just a press release [google.com] meant to drum up business for Motorola, and generate ad revenue for PhysOrg.com.
    • Frankly, I'm shocked to see this come out so soon. It can't be more than a couple months since I personally first heard about using carbon nanotubes to emit light, and here they are claiming to have built a TV using them already.

      The cost estimate is almost obligatory these days when discussing flat screens. Everybody's saying "Sure, it cost $3000 now, but wait until we refine the production. It'll be $500 in a year or two." I think I first heard that claim 2 years ago.

      From what I've read about flat sc
    • Re: Timeline? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Alwin Henseler (640539) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:47PM (#12483225) Homepage
      Sure, it sounds great. And there's even a working prototype and cost estimate for a 40" model. But how far off is that possibility?

      With flatscreen tech making such fast advances, I've decided to postpone replacement of my CRT as long as possible. Basically, until it dies, or the image quality goes down badly.

      With most computer components, we've gotten used to something like 2-3 year life cycles. If you make a less-than-optimal purchase, too bad, but replacement will follow fairly quick.

      But monitors/TV's, like washing machines, typically last quite a bit longer. So I'll be happy if my CRT lasts another year, so that better/cheaper flatscreens are on sale, when the time comes. Maybe this technology has arrived in the shops by then.

  • ...we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400

    I keep trying to come up with something witty to say, except I can't stop fantasizing about having a 40" LCD screen. Well, maybe two side-by-side for life-sized pictures of little people.

    • Re:Bigger is better (Score:4, Interesting)

      by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:07PM (#12482913)
      A 40" NED panel manufacturing cost at $400 is nothing special. Add in the electronics, packaging, G&A, margins, distribution costs and so on and I bet you are looking at $2000 or more. That is in the same ballpark as what a 40" microdisplay HDTV costs today. It's more than what a 50" CRT RPTV costs.

      Maybe the picture quality will be good, but so are current CRT RPTV's.

  • by Prophetic_Truth (822032) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:57PM (#12482794)
    Why do HD receivers still cost more than the average ones? The cable plans with HD are more than the ones without..Getting the Screen cheaper is great, but there are still a lot of costs associated with HDTV which end up being more than Joe Sixpack can't afford.
    • All of the other costs associated with HD are issues of competition and market size.

      These issues will fall like dominoes when $400 HDTVs are released.

      Cheap screens = more users = larger market = more players who want a piece = more competition = lower prices.
    • Is Joe Sixpack an alcoholic or just really ripped? I've never figured that out...
  • At $400 a pop... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LewsTherinKinslayer (817418) <lewstherinkinslayer@gmail.com> on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:58PM (#12482803) Homepage
    I'd still say its a bit high to be considered the "low cost necessary to bring HDTV to the masses."

    I for could probably see myself paying that much for it, as would a large amount of geeks and/or yuppies. However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality. Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes, there isn't much on teevee worth watching in HDTV.

    Games and DVDs on the other hand...
    • However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality.

      1. Think about the savings in power consumption.
      2. Remember cars were expensive before Henry Ford. (Just wait until the mass productions lower the costs)
    • Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:4, Informative)

      by pla (258480) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:06PM (#12482908) Journal
      I'd still say its a bit high to be considered the "low cost necessary to bring HDTV to the masses."

      For 40"???

      I upgraded my TV last year, to a 540p-capable model (DAMN I wish I'd waited another year), for just about a grand... at 32" widescreen. Absolutely beautiful for progressive DVDs, but still, now I regret not having a 720p (though, at least 1080i doesn't require scaling...)

      $400 for a 40" TV does not suck, at all.


      However, I consider this important for a totally different reason...

      This doesn't sound like an LCD. It sounds like a CRT with each pixel having its own electron gun, in an eighth of an inch thick. Think about that for a minute, and then just try to stop drooling. The thought certainly impresses me, and I only watch about an hour of TV per week.

      Near-infinite brightness, perfect contrast (even "real" CRTs can't do that), pixel-addressable (ie, infinite sharpness?), lightweight and low depth, presumeably low power consumption display costing less than either a comparable CRT or LCD having all the shortcomings of either of those technologies as they exist today.


      Perhaps I read more into this than I should, but if it delivers half of that, time to invest in their stock...
    • However, I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality.

      You're on crack. I know a lot of people who've shelled out a lot more than that on smaller CRTs (I dropped $700+ on a Sony Wega a couple years ago).

      Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes

      <grammar>Not even for the more relaxed purposes!</grammar>

    • Yeah, and most people wouldn't spend $400 on a hard drive based MP3 player either. Not when all the music sucks nowadays.

      I'd also say there's a lot worth watching in HDTV. Maybe not the tonight show, but we've had ninety years of movies now and at least a few thousand of them would benefit from HDTV. And when HDTV is the norm-- and as animation and FX technology improve-- there will be plenty worth watching.
    • Re:At $400 a pop... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Queer Boy (451309) *

      I'd say for most people, its not worth paying $400 dollars for a TV of any size or picture quality. Especially when you consider for all intensive purposes, there isn't much on teevee worth watching in HDTV.

      For all intents and purposes we're talking about $400 for a 40" television which is cheaper than it is now for a 40". Your opinion about nothing worth watching in HDTV is just that, opinion. I have a 65" Mitsubishi RPTV and HDTV makes SDTV look like ass, doesn't matter what I am watching.

      You fai

    • If you read the article you see this: ...the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400.

      That's the MANUFACTURED cost. That's not what you'd be paying for it at Best Buy. Wholesale price would probably be at least double that, and then you're looking at probably another 50% markup on top of that to give you the retail price.

      So really you're probably going to be paying $1000-1500 when all is said and done. Currently an HD flat panel is going to be in the $3000+ price range. So that's
    • "And according to a detailed cost model analysis conducted by our firm, we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400"

      Manufactured cost is not what you'll pay at retail. A little Googling uncovered this heuristic for a 6:1 manufactured vs retail cost. The ratio seems optimistic for today's razor thin margins and the commodity TV business, but it still indicates much higher retail prices.

      From The Entrepreneur Network [tenonline.org]:

      It may not be possible to manufacture your product

    • $400 for a TV isn't really that much. Plenty of people bought 19"-25" TVs at that price range 15-20 years ago, and that's when $400 was worth more than it is today. $400 for a 42" TV (which is what TFA said, not 40") will sell like hotcakes, despite the existence of very low cost competition.

      By the way, the phrase is "for all intents and purposes". Widescreen anamorphic DVDs are a good reason to get a widescreen TV, even if it doesn't require HD. Cheap HDTVs will lead to most stuff on TV being in HD.

  • by Pantero Blanco (792776) on Monday May 09, 2005 @05:58PM (#12482813)
    400 bucks buys a used car...I won't really consider these affordable until they're down to 200 or less.
    • Not a troll (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:11PM (#12482955)
      400 bucks buys a used car...I won't really consider these affordable until they're down to 200 or less.

      I love how this got moderated "troll". Folks- digital TV is supposedly "mandated" for switchover. Except nobody's making cheap digital TVs- so people aren't buying.

      People also aren't buying because current plasma and LCD units just DO NOT LAST! We have a TV in our house that is at least 15 years old, and works just fine (yes, it's got an IR remote, yes, it tunes basic cable, etc). While Motorola's press release hasn't said much about exactly how long the lifetime will be on these, if the TV industry wants consumers to buy 'em in numbers large enough to make the "mandate" possible- they'd better make them a tad more durable.

      • Perhaps I should leave off commenting on the FCC mandated switchover since it's been discussed quite a few times other places, but it still irks me. It's going to keep coming back and biting us in the butt quite a few times even after the switchover date passes.

        Who knows, maybe nanotubes will prove to be more durable in TV's than LCD's. Plus there will be the cool factor. Just like how some people like to brag "My leg brace is made from the same metal as the SR-71 Blackbird." Maybe it will be, "My TV uses

      • Re:Not a troll (Score:4, Informative)

        by martinX (672498) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:58PM (#12483305)

        You don't need a digital TV to display a digital TV signal. You need a digital TV set top box. It will plug in to any display you want: LCD, plasma, rear screen, HDLP or 15 year old CRT.

        http://www.dba.org.au/index.asp?sectionID=18&so=7& sd=asc [dba.org.au]

    • If I can't buy one with the pennies that I've been pitching onto the Coke machine down the hall, then it's not affordable.
  • Being a gamer, I haven't made the jump to lcd. I want different resolutions and the resizing to lcd's one res is an eyesore to me. Not to mention lcd's other limitations like ghosting of fast moving images.
    • I'm still avoiding LCD's too for a few reasons:
      1) Slower refresh rate. Can you set 8ms displays to 85Hz through DVI? This has actually improved quite a bit since they first came out.
      2) Poor scaling of lower resolutions. I mean, it's nice to play a game at 1600x1200, but if your framerate suffers it's better to run 1024x768. I have yet to see an LCD scale an image as well as a CRT. It's too bad video cards don't have some sort of built in bicubic interpolation with sharpening to mitigate this effect.
      3) Poor
  • by hoka (880785) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:00PM (#12482833)
    For just about every piece of technology I've always found that its always overhyped in some way (purely the fault of marketers). I wouldn't hold my breath over an announcement like this, while yes it may be very interesting and perhaps be a forward-moving technology for the industry, I have heard "this will make ___ cheaper, and is better" far too many times to start going "omg, now I must migrate everything over to it!". Time always reveals the winners.
  • by rjelks (635588) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:02PM (#12482857) Homepage
    I'd really like the flat panel technologies to get cheaper, but we've been hearing about it for a long time. I keep reading articles about new display technologies that never actually bear fruit. This new prototype from Motorolla sounds promising...$400 for a 40-inch HDTV sounds like a bargin. I'll buy one as soon as I read about it on my "electronic ink" newspaper. :^)

    /impatient
    /sorry about the fark slashes
  • several key points (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:04PM (#12482875)
    Hate to rain on the parade, but:

    a)PhysOrg is just a slightly more subtle version of PR Newswire. Note there's no author. Slashdot, please stop linking to crap like this. Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.

    b)Manufactured cost is NOT market cost. Not even close. If a NE display lasts longer than plasma and looks equally nice- you can be damn sure it will cost MORE to the consumer.

    c)They claim longer lifetime, but no range/estimate is given, even though they surely know what it is. If it's a year or two more than plasma (which is lucky to last 3-4 years), pardon me while I let out a big 'ol yawn.

    d)A five-inch unit was produced because, most likely, they haven't been able to get high enough yield rates to do a 42" display. Call us when you've got something that actually resembles your target application in terms of scale.

    • Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.

      They do label it a press release. [google.com] The not-so-reputable sites package it up and sell it to you as news. But don't blame Motorola, blame PhysOrg for not putting (Press Release) like Yahoo does, and blame Slashdot for accepting a company's PR spam.
      • by MustardMan (52102)
        Physorg in general eats a whole lot of ass. I have lost count of how many times I've read a really good paper with some pretty groundbreaking results, then seen the results of said paper posted as an article on physorg without ever REFERENCING the original source. Physorg is teh suck.
    • a)Give us an alternative physics / tech newswire, and we'll follow.

      b)If it costs more, what makes you think the consumer will buy it in the first place?

      c)If you had researched on nanotube displays, you'd see that it's the evolution of CRT's - hence the same (or more) lifetime.

      d) This is slashdot! Why do you think we get news on the Space Elevator when it's years or decades away? Doh!
    • Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop insulting our intelligence.

      Hmm. Slashdot picked it up and put it on the front page. I think you meant, "Manufacturers- if you're going to put out a press release, just call it a #@$!ing press release- and stop accurately assessing our intelligence."
    • a)amen: Motorola sure called it one...
      http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detail/0 , ,5484_5474_23,00.html [motorola.com]

      b) that's right, remember people - e = mc^2 where e is expensive, m is the manufacturers price, and c is the consumer demand.

      c) not a single one of their 3 week old displays has had any problems!

      d) arguably a scale issue, but problems can definitely crop up in the process when you jump up - especially 2^6ing your area.
  • Still Pixels (SDE) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by barfy (256323) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:04PM (#12482877)
    This will *NOT* be a Flat CRT. Which does it's magic with the use of a flyback transformer, and a shadowmask. When done really well with good content you get an image where you cannot distinguish the individual pixels.

    This will have similar issues that CRT's have. It will have visible SDE and generally will not have good close-up performance characteristics compared to CRT or LCD.

    I do welcome our 400 dollar pricetags, but it looks like it will be a direct race with Plasma which has already dramatically improved the phosphor half-life (to that of as good or better than CRT's), reduced and removed burn-in, and good brightness and viewing angles. LCD's have one last gasp with Lumileds which look to finally improve brightness and color so that TV doesn't look like watching a flourescent tube. I think you will see 42" 16x9 for $1000 next year. I think Plasma wins. FED are going to be too far behind the engineering curves.
  • by ultramk (470198) <ultramk.pacbell@net> on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:06PM (#12482904)
    But I'm not.

    Every new display technology in the last 10 years either:
    1. Is so astonishingly far from making it to market that I'll likely be blind before it gets there. (OLED, except for cell phones and the like)
    2. Is touted as a quality, affordable solution, then is introduced only at the mid-high end (DLP, I'm looking at you)
    3. Is never heard from again. (too many examples to list.)

    I want something that's thinner and lighter than a CRT, without plasma burn-in, doesn't suffer from LCD's horrible color gamut, is sharper and cheaper than DLP, and lasts longer than OLED.

    Bleh, maybe when I'm dead.

    m-
    • I want something that's thinner and lighter than a CRT,
      without plasma burn-in, doesn't suffer from LCD's horrible color gamut, is sharper and cheaper than DLP, and lasts longer than OLED.


      I'm with the last poster, you really need a unicorn.

      DLP is actually pretty sharp, any blurry DLP set is most likely a mal-adjusted set.

      I really don't think LCD is that bad. Like any display technology, if a new display looks bad, it may very well be poor calibration.

      OLED simply isn't ready, without breakthroughs (I ha
  • price isn't cost (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lvcipriani (764022) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:10PM (#12482940)
    The price to consumers isn't going to be the cost plus some small markup. The price to consumers will be whatever the manufacturer figures will maximize their profit, which could be quite high considering the demand. They ain't no charity. That's very cool technology, do you think they would invest in that if they thought they couldn't patent it ? ;-)
  • Until these things have run for a few thousand hours, we won't know if they have burn-in problems. I would expect the carbon nanotubes to erode at the ends due to the extremely high electronic fields and for carbon tube fragments to eventually poison the phosphors.

    TFA touts that this "could offer ... longer lifetimes," but I'm always cynical of breathless promises of what some future technology "could" bring.
  • by BillsPetMonkey (654200) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:13PM (#12482969)
    Is this the breakthrough we needed to finally make HDTV and flat-panel computer displays *really* affordable?

    Not if Motorola has anything to do with it.

    MOTOROLA CORPORATE STRATEGY circa 1930 (CONFIDENTIAL)

    1. Invent something brilliant.
    2. Overprice it.
    3. Watch your competitors undercut you with better products
    4. Produce a "budget" model to compete with said competitors
    5. Get branded the lame duck of the industry
    6. Claim to have invented it and therefore have a god-given right to overcharge and underfeature it.
    7. Umm .... profi ... hang on, look what we've invented!

    Senior executives' strategies usually outlive technologies. Unfortunately.
  • by WillAffleckUW (858324) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:16PM (#12482997) Homepage Journal
    Another noticeable thing in the article was that LCD electronics are low cost, but what about low power?

    If I can get a 40 inch HDTV screen that uses as much energy as a lightbulb, it has a major impact both on heat and power usage.

  • Yes, watchout! I wonder whether Motorola will do the needful and end up more visible in the home entertainment scene. The Asians (read Japanese, Koreans and Chinese), will catch-up and be seen in the world, to have "created" this technology. It has happened before and it surely might happen again.

    When I look arround my living room, all I see are Japanese/Korean electronics. Nothing is made in my own USA! But I know that as Americans, we invented the transistor that enbles all the magic arround us to happen

  • I've heard some of these flat panels only last ~5 years, and aren't at all repairable. That sucks for a variety of reasons. It'd be nice (for everyone but tv manufacturers) if they lasted longer.
  • Rather than making these things thinner and cheaper all the time, I really wish they'd concentrate on keeping the prices about the same, or maybe a bit lower, as they are right now, while simultaneously increasing the resolution. It would be cool to have a 2048x1024 display the size of a PDA. That would mean that one of those cinema displays or whatever would have resolution measured in gigapixels or something like that. And that would be good for a variety of different types of work. Then, they can concent
  • by Bean9000 (841843) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:37PM (#12483154) Homepage
    The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400 for the manufacturer.

    As a few other have hinted at, the original statement is highly misleading. Yes, the cost of the actual parts is a factor in determining the price of a product - but it's only one of many. It's effect on the price is also inversely proportional to how much the item is a 'luxury' item or a 'necessary item.'

    So need to worry if you just spent $5k on a plasma which cost the manufacturer $3k to produce. Because if it cost them only $400 to produce it, they would still have charged you $5k...and rightfully so as you were willing to pay that amount in the first place.

    So this is definitely exciting news for TV manufacturers as it will serve nicely to increase the profit margin. When will we benefit? When nobody wants to pay as much for a plasma anymore - and, more importantly, doesn't.

  • by vectorian798 (792613) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:39PM (#12483173)
    CRT:
    Very Fast Response Time
    Perfect Viewing Angles
    Massive and Heavy

    LCD:
    Lower Resolutions
    Bad Viewing Angles
    Bad Response Times (though recent 8ms panels reduce this immensely)
    Expensive
    Very Nice Colors
    Thin and Light
    Doesn't hurt the eye

    Plasma:
    Dies in 5 years due to gas leakage

    Rear-projector:
    Yea these suck from the sides or close-up so let's not even mention these

    Carbon-nanotube (CNT) based Motorola Display:
    Because it uses phosphors like in CRTs, good brightness
    Fast response time
    Good viewing angle
    Thin and light
    Cheap
    DOESNT NEED BACKLIGHT (no more washed-out colors in sunlight)
    Longevity compared to plasmas
    Though this is a 5" prototype, it is a 5" section of a larger 42" CNT grid for a large HD display, so stop bitching about this being 5 inches

    Other notes: Since CNTs are small and the phosphor technology is the same as in CRTs (excite phosphor atoms to give off photons by making appropriate electrical connections using switches...in this case, CNT's) I am assuming that we can actually get large high-resolution monitors (this one is 1280 x 720) perhaps just like the crazy CRTs with 2XXX by 1XXX resolution.
    • You dismiss rear-projection far too quickly. I have a 5 year old Toshiba 40H80 40 inch rear projection HDTV. It cost me $2300 new, which was pretty close to the least you could pay for anything in that class at the time. Rear projection offers some of the best overall value (not too expensive, big but not too heavy, good clarity and response times).

      Projection TVs don't have the huge viewing angles that CRTs do, but in practice it's not likely a problem as long as you have a decent place for the set in your
  • The display appears to promise lower costs for a full 40" HDTV screen bringing the price down to $400.

    Sure it may be $400 but then go the store and look at that price tag: at least double. They know it would still sell so why would they lower the price? They're not dumb.
  • LCD was meant to be this great thing. It ended up being crap. For anything serious it just isn't that good. It

    Will it consume less power? Generate less heat? Will it have better update times? And, will the colours look less washed out?

    If at least 3/4 of this are not solved when this displays will become commercially available, i'm sticking with the mature CRT.
  • Not for $400... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by theNAM666 (179776) on Monday May 09, 2005 @06:52PM (#12483265)
    we estimate the manufactured cost for a 40-inch NED panel could be under $400.


    Notwithstanding that this is a press release and quite likely vaporware, manufactured cost is not retail by far. The manufactured cost of a dual-layer DVD drive has been well under $10 for quite some time.


    Add to this variuous overhead from shipping to marketing and, of course, profit! and retail may be 3-4x as much. That might be an advance, but as noted, this is only a press release which says they might have a product someday and the manufacture cost could, if they're really lucky and everything goes perfectly, be under $400.


    Nothing to wet your diapers about, young SlashDotter.

  • I find it interesting that though this tech is nowhere near production, they are already talking about a finished product that is unable to play HDTV signals. What's up with 1280x720? I mean, sure, I'd pay $400 for it, but even if the manufacturing costs will be $400, the retail cost will probably be at least double.

    So yeah, this is neato, and I'm especially happy about CRT phosphors. I'm a sucker for the color richness of a CRT. I hope it doesn't flop. If I'm rich when this comes out, this might be my ne

  • It only took a month from the Nano Tube '05 Conference [chalmers.se] for this to hit the regular press, but Motorola announced this technology back in 2003 [motorola.com].
  • by Zobeid (314469) on Monday May 09, 2005 @07:58PM (#12483660)
    As others have pointed out, the panel itself may be manufactured for $400, that's not the retail price of a TV set. Add a power supply, tuner and other electronics, a nice housing, packaging, freight and tariffs, then markup for the manufacturer, and the distributer, and the retailer. . . You could easily be looking at $1200+ for the set.

    Another thing that concerns me is the use of CRT-style phosphors. That means it will be subject to burn-in. Many people seem unaware of burn-in, but I expect it to become a big issue in a few years -- after the first generation of widescreen CRT and plasma sets start showing bars at either side when viewing full-screen content.

    At my house we recently got a large Mitsubishi LCD panel. LCDs of course are not subject to burn-in. The wide viewing angle is impressive to me. Also, I was surprised by the default factory settings. There was no "red push" or "torch mode" or other typical kinds of programmed-in distortion to make it stand out in the showroom. I checked black level, contrast, sharpness, tint and color balance, etc. . . And I hardly changed anything from the factory settings. I just wish I had some actual HD test patterns to try on it, instead of a test DVD.
  • Will there be anything worthwhile to watch on it?
  • Look at this [nanopicoftheday.org].

    Samsung has had this technology since 1999. It just hasn't been economical compared to LCDs. Samsung has been reluctant to undercut their own massive LCD panel investment, too.

    More nanotube hype. Being at Rice University you'd think I'd be immune to the irritation by now.

CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...

Working...