Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Technology

Sony Shows Off Flexible OLED Screens At CES 150

Posted by timothy
from the too-bad-she-won't-live dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Sony's stand at CES had a small area set aside for flexible OLED screens, along with three mock-ups of possible OLED devices (including one stunning ultra-portable with no hinge and a single display for both screen and keyboard). There was also a working OLED screen being bent back and forth while playing a video clip. Does this mean roll-up, low-power colour screens will soon hit the market? Not unless OLED prices come down — Sony's stunning XEL-1 OLED TV costs $2,500, but only has an 11in screen ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sony Shows Off Flexible OLED Screens At CES

Comments Filter:
  • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:22PM (#26434519) Homepage Journal
    ...And if you use it to watch pirated movies then it will curl up and die on you!
  • Color chaning clothes!

    The invisibility cloak is finally on it's way.

    • Re:Clothes (Score:4, Funny)

      by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:34PM (#26434753)
      Yeah but if an 11 in^2 is $2500 and most folks are 2 m^2 in surface area, it would cost about $17,875 for the displays alone and at that point would be pretty skin tight, more like a leotard than a cloak.

      I'd be happy to see an invisible tie so I could wear that and get one over on the man, or randomly turn it from invisible to a disturbing picture for microseconds to mess with friends and co-workers.
      • randomly turn it from invisible to a disturbing picture for microseconds to mess with friends and co-workers.

        OLED response time is 0.1ms according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. So, for at least 100 microseconds.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:27PM (#26434615) Homepage Journal

    I can't buy Sony anything; once bitten, twice shy. Never again will Sony have the chance to fuck me over like that.

    along with three mock-ups of possible OLED devices

    I.e., lies. But what do you expect from sociopaths who would install rootkits in music CD, especially install rootkits that contain copyrighted FOSS that they have no right to use?

    And no, I will NOT let this rest. Sony owes me for the purchase of MS XP (since video drivers were no longer available for 98) and an Audigy sound card, as well as several hours of my time. I can no longer trust Sony and refuse to buy from them, and consider anyone who would be a Sony customer extremely stupid and short sighted.

    Not unless OLED prices come down

    You can count on it. In five years an OLED screen may well be a couple of bucks.

    • by dotancohen (1015143) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:33PM (#26434731) Homepage

      Let me commend you before you get modded troll. Sony is the dickwad of the industry. I love their hardware (earphones in particular, and standalone music systems) but never again will I buy anything from Sony with any type of electronic communications interface. Not even their digital cameras, nor Sony-Ericson telephones.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by mcgrew (92797) *

        Let me commend you before you get modded troll.

        Thank you, I figured I'd be downmodded but that's what happens when you're honest. My karma can take it. It's possible its now "flamebait" mey become "troll" and wind up a +5 insightful or interesting; it's happened to more than one comment.

        Any mention of Sony always provokes an extremely angry reaction by me. I want their business to fold and their executives in prison.

      • Now, thats pretty rational, since Sony's initial industries, audio/video hardware was strong and still is to the most part. Its when they grew too big for their own heads that they got sloppy and disgusting. Anything they make other than AV stuff is pure garbage. We buy Sony earbuds because they are top notch, sometimes the best. Their phones, oh lord how they suck. And if these hardware/software amalgamies of suck wasnt bad enough, taking hardware right out leaves them with SOE and Sony Music, two of th
      • by asamad (658115)

        have to agree, hate their lock in stuff.

        It will be a long time before I buy any sony equipment again

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        I remember just having my antique Sony Vaio laptop with neomagic video. Windows 2000 drivers were available to OEMs but not to users from the manufacturer, but Sony didn't bother to roll them, so I was stuck on Windows 98. (The drivers are probably everywhere now.) And as a PS2 owner, I am suitably annoyed that they made memory cards instead of just using memory sticks - 8MB for $30? DIE DIE DIE.

    • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:41PM (#26434911) Homepage

      Boycott the Sony record label by all means.
      However, I don't think it's practical in boycott entire mega-corporations since they are really just umbrella legal entities.

      Whilst I wouldn't buy a Sony CD, battery, or anything that uses a proprietary recording format, I would buy another Sony TV because they've been of good build quality, and none have expired before I chose to upgrade myself.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mcgrew (92797) *

        My forty two inch Trinitron works very well (except for one bad input that I only use for the radio anyway), has an excellent picture ane very good sound (I have it plugged into some 12 inch 3 way speakers).

        But the rootkit was a killer. Newer equipment will be internet enabled, and Sony will be able to do any damned thing they want to it, and theor XCP showed that they WILL stoop to anything.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Miseph (979059)

        "However, I don't think it's practical in boycott entire mega-corporations since they are really just umbrella legal entities."

        You'd be surprised. The only new Sony product I've purchased in over a year is a clock radio, and even then I'm stretching the definition of "I purchased" to include somebody buying it on my behalf with no input beyond "I need a new alarm clock for". It turns out that they have all sorts of competitors offering comparable (and sometimes even better) products at prices which are almo

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by Dogtanian (588974)
          Another point; the "umbrella" corporation uses the same name to associate all these subsidiaries. They want to enjoy the benefits of associating them with each other and trade off that goodwill. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
          • by flitty (981864)
            You'd think that Sony wouldn't want to align themselves with the corporation that released the T-virus and the G-virus and helped destroy Racoon City...
      • by anjin-san 3 (983912) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @03:31PM (#26437881)
        Actually, Sony buys the "guts" of their HD TVs from Samsung and just puts them in a slick case and slaps their logo in it. You can buy the exact same TV from Samsung without paying extra for the Sony brand.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by glitch23 (557124)

          Actually, Sony buys the "guts" of their HD TVs from Samsung and just puts them in a slick case and slaps their logo in it. You can buy the exact same TV from Samsung without paying extra for the Sony brand.

          I was just at Best Buy on Sunday. I looked at a lot of LCD TVs (they had very few plasmas I noticed). They had many in a row on 2 levels of shelves so I could easily compare about 8 all at once. I noticed the Sony KDL52W4100 had the best picture as far as color vibrance and contrast are concerned. Why wouldn't the Samsung and the Sony TVs be the same if what you say is true?

          • by eihab (823648)

            I was just at Best Buy on Sunday. I looked at a lot of LCD TVs (they had very few plasmas I noticed). They had many in a row on 2 levels of shelves so I could easily compare about 8 all at once. I noticed the Sony KDL52W4100 had the best picture as far as color vibrance and contrast are concerned. Why wouldn't the Samsung and the Sony TVs be the same if what you say is true?

            Calibration. A lot of stores are either:

            1 - Clueless and can't calibrate all their TVs
            OR (more likely)
            2 - Deliberately screwing up the colors to make some TVs stand out

            I couldn't even begin to count how many times I've seen pictures so bad on TVs on display that I _knew_ for a fact were good.

            One of my favorite quotes is "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity", but I highly doubt that their techs are that bad.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by toddestan (632714)

              Given that it's a Best Buy, I would say:

              3 - They pull the display model TV out of the box and hook it up. However the engineers at the factory set it up is how it is on the shelf, and Sony and Samsung tune them differently.
              4 - The customers have been screwing with the settings.

              Or the TVs could be different. I've got a Samsung and Sony LCDs in a dual head set up on my PC, and no matter how I screw with the settings on the Samsung the Sony has a better picture.

        • by jgoemat (565882)
          What's your source?
    • by AaxelB (1034884)

      I can no longer trust Sony and refuse to buy from them...

      I agree, but the vast majority of the public has absolutely no fricking clue why that would be the case. Just yesterday in one of my classes we were discussing business ethics and the fundamental motivations of a business (I'm a CS major taking a course on business law), and Sony was held up by the professor as an example of a company that has a primary goal of creating a quality product and building a quality brand. I didn't speak up because the example was given in passing and I didn't want to hold up the

    • by MarkvW (1037596)

      I agree with you to a large extent. Sony has blown away an awful lot of goodwill by shipping crummy products.

    • In five years an OLED screen may well be a couple of bucks.

      fyi-- oled screens are quite common for phones these days. a quick google search yields this: http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=1873 [phonescoop.com]
      so the first phone with an oled screen in the US was in 2006. im too lazy to search all the current phones with it - but if you are curious i'd highly recommend you check if your phone is (it'll make you feel super cool if it does)

      • My Creative Zen Sleek Photo from 2005 has an OLED screen, and I paid $65 for it (admittedly at a large discount).

        It does make me feel cool until I realize that the thing is still a piece of junk.

  • Roll. up TVs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Viol8 (599362) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:37PM (#26434813)

    Instead of pulling down the whitescreen for a TV projector from a roll, you actually roll down the TV itself - flexible screen comlpete with black backing and polymer based circuitry. 10 years I reckon before these are in the shops.

    • 10 years I reckon before these are in the shops.

      Fine with me. That's probably about the time I'll finally give up my tried and true CRT for something new. Up to now, I've just kept it, because what with format wars in the blu ray space, expensive content sources (whether it be players, the discs themselves, or HD cable), three competing large screen technologies (LCD, Plasma and rear projection) all with their own problems, TVs not always being 1080p, and sometimes just 1080i, changing cable designs, etc, I

      • Why do you care if the TV technology you buy is on its way to obsolescence? This isn't VHS vs Betamax or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. As you have found with your obsolete CRT there is no particular advantage in having a popular technology in your display.

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by Enderandrew (866215)

        They're already saying laser TVs will trump OLEDs. If you're waiting for one technology to trump all other technologies with no other technologies on the horizon, you'll be waiting a long while.

        In the mean time, I've got a gorgeous 56" Sony Bravia LCD. I hook my PS3 into it to stream videos from my PC wirelessly, or to watch BluRays, and the experience is better than going to the movies. I noticed details watching The Dark Knight I didn't see in two viewings on the Imax.

        • Laser TVs will not be as thin as OLEDs, or as light, or as energy efficient, or flexible. I doubt it will trump OLEDs in many areas. I'd much prefer an OLED display on my computer and phone.

      • I feel the same way about hard drives! No sense spending thousands trying to guess which technology isn't going to be obsolete or which one isn't going to have tons of problems.

        Back when I first got my computer, 3000MB was a huge hard drive and it cost several thousand dollars. Today 80GB hard drive is considered a small hard drive. In 10 years 100TB hard drive will be standard.

        Fine with me. That's probably about the time I'll finally give up my tried and true 40MB hard drive for something new.

        // end
        • by toddestan (632714)

          Well, CRT -> OLED isn't a bad upgrade path. If you care about picture quality, a good CRT will blow away the LCD TVs and projectors. Plasmas are competitive but their shorter life and higher cost leaves me inclined to keep the CRT for now. There is DLP, but some people are annoyed by the rainbow effect. So why not wait for the OLED TVs?

    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      It would be more useful if the screen could be folded like a normal sheet of paper. I suppose a roll up screen on a scroll might work.

      Basically, you want to be able to reduce the screen to be as small as possible for carrying and expand to a reasonable size for viewing. Reading /. on the metro like a paper would be cool.

  • Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Piranhaa (672441) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:54PM (#26435099)

    Now Anonymous Coward is going to run around the internet shouting "Will it BEND??"

  • by lurking_giant (1087199) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @12:56PM (#26435139) Journal
    Also at the show were examples of Samsungs prototype transparent OLED screens. It offers another way to "put yourself in the picture" http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/Samsung_Transparent_OLED_Ces_2009.jpg [oled-info.com] and http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/Samsung_Transparent_OLED_Ces_2009_2.jpg [oled-info.com]
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Also at the show were examples of Samsungs prototype transparent OLED screens. It offers another way to "put yourself in the picture"

      How much did Samsung offer you to use their advertising slogan in your comment?

  • They are fantastic - million contrast ratio for page-size screen. However its still over $2K at the lcoal Sony store.
  • Some OLED notes (Score:5, Informative)

    by theskipper (461997) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @01:07PM (#26435379)

    A few points about OLED:

    1) The optimal solution right now is flourescent blue combined with PHOLED red and green (phosphorescent). It's unclear right now how much PHOLED is being used in Sony's sets.

    PHOLED is important primarily for power consumption which is why OLED screens are showing up more frequently in mobile devices. Nokia recently mandated that their suppliers have supply capability for OLED. Samsung is the major proponent of using PHOLED although LG and others are on board with materials+royalty contracts in place.

    2) Samsung's recent statements about larger screen sizes (30"+) being far into the future seem to be due to two issues. First, although current LCD lines can be relatively easily retrofitted to produce OLED panels, production capacity is just starting to be scaled.

    Second, and probably more importantly, the major LCD panel manufacturers have a major investment to be paid off in the later gen lines that recently came online.

    3) The major issues facing OLED right now are packaging, lifetime and defect rate. The molecules degrade rapidly when exposed to oxygen/moisture so much tighter packaging is required (largely solved). Blue lifetime (both molecule sizes) was a problem in the past, 30k+ hours is now realistic. Defect rate applies to larger panels and is why 30"+ screens will be prohibitively expensive for now (Samsung has produced prototypes though so it isn't vaporware).

    4) PHOLED can reach 100% EQE, flourescent around 25%. PMOLED is still viable but PHOLED should (imho) be the ideal molecule in the future. PHOLED deep blue with adequate lifetime is still the major hurdle, sky blue is ready to go.

    5) OLED isn't just display. Lighting is arguably a larger market in the long run. Current specs are around 50lm/W but 100lm/W PHOLED has been successfully demonstrated. 150lm/W is pushing the envelope but not unrealistic.

    GE is pushing its roll-to-roll initiative. Philips is aggressively heading toward commercial production. OLED lighting offers lower power consumption, temperature tunability, flexibility, flat panel replacement and fault tolerance (in the respect that a hole in the middle of the panel won't take out the entire structure). Universal Display recently received a grant with Armstrong to engineer tiles for commercial use.

    6) OLED's appeal is not just a better display and flexibility; thickness (sub-1mm) and transparency are important factors for future designs and mass acceptance as a technology (Youtube has many videos about the Samsung prototypes).

    7) The technology is way past the prototype stage, like where FED and SED have been stuck. Kodak, Dupont, BASF and every Japanese and Korean company you can name are involved (i.e. heavily investing) in OLED. Not to mention that the Chinese are going online this year in a big way. Will it replace LCD for display? Not any time soon. The question is not how many applications there are to make it viable, it's how soon these apps will gain critical mass in the marketplace.

    Google for further information.

    • Universal Display recently received a grant with Armstrong to engineer tiles for commercial use.

      Great, now they'll have ads on the floor. Ads that will follow you around. "Follow the red dot on the floor to The Gap, Mr Yakamoto. We have assorted tank tops on sale."
  • Flicker? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tlhIngan (30335) <.slashdot. .at. .worf.net.> on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @01:14PM (#26435505)

    I have seen the Sony OLED TV (FYI, the resolution is quarter-1080p 960x540), but one thing I noticed is... the flicker during bright scenes. Now, I don't know if it was caused by the source (blu-ray player), the cabling (running 1080p24), or the scaler (both the size and framerate adjust). It was the light images, but I'm just somewhat concerned that we'll end up in the days of screens that flicker again. (Nothing's more annoying that someone who has their CRT set to 60Hz refresh).

    I'm thinking it's just a scalar issue, but I've seen it on some of the OLED screens used in MP3 players...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Twinbee (767046)

      Okay, that's a tad scary. I thought OLED had stupidly fast response times. I realise that's not the same as real-world refresh rate, but it should at least be capable.

      In any case, I can't understand how (or why) it would want to emulate the mechnical vertical scan of traditional CRT.

      One 'interesting' feature of OLED technology I think is that there's no 'real' grayscale. It flickers the light on/off incredibly fast to emulate gray (or any colour). I doubt this issue relates to the above flicker aspect that

      • OLEDs flicker because in most implementations the pixel rows are lighted and scanned sequentially, like on a CRT. Also, the apparent illumination shade of the individual pixels are usually determined by cycle interruption. The integration over time to form a fully shaded image occurs on the retina of the viewer.

        Most flat panel display tech use some form of pulse width "flicker" modulation per pixel to produce different shades of intensity. Plasma TVs probably have the most extreme and most annoying implemen

        • by Twinbee (767046)

          I've read a LOT on OLED, and never come across the sequential scanning thing before. I thought they were similar to LCD where the pixel stays on until changed. Can't OLED act like that too? A few questions if you'd be so kind:

          1: Do you think it would be easy to go way above 60fps for OLED scanning?
          2: For a fully white pixel, what time proportion of the pixel is off compared to on? How quick (as a ratio of the refresh rate) is the 'fade' to black once that pixel has been excited?
          3: Which OLED flavours don't

  • I'm racking my brain for a connection between this story and that line from Bladerunner. Anyone have a clue?
  • anyone notice this bizzare tidbit FTFA?

    the Sony 11 inch diagonal OLED TV can result in reduced power consumption of up to 40% per panel square inch compared to conventional 20-inch LCD panels.No backlight is used with the organic materials.

    Can we at least try to compare apples with apples. A 20inch is 55% larger than a 11inch tv, so does this even save power?

    • by jabelli (1144769)

      Read the entire passage you quoted, not just the part you bolded. It says "per panel square inch," so we are in fact comparing apples to apples. Well, square inches to square inches, anyway.

      • by berwiki (989827)
        It is still is a terrible comparison.

        A larger TV may need a significant amount of additional energy to supply the exponentially increasing Surface Area. So, although they did use the 'per panel square inch' terminology, it would make a heck of a lot more sense to use a similar size TV for comparison.
    • anyone notice this bizzare tidbit FTFA?

      the Sony 11 inch diagonal OLED TV can result in reduced power consumption of up to 40% per panel square inch compared to conventional 20-inch LCD panels.No backlight is used with the organic materials.

      Can we at least try to compare apples with apples. A 20inch is 55% larger than a 11inch tv, so does this even save power?

      Note that the power consumption is based per panel square inch. They are comparing apples to apples, but in one case they are averaging out 49 apples versus 196 apples.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Since screens are measured diagonally, a twenty inch screen has the same size in square inches as four ten inch screens. You would expect a twenty inch screen to use roughly four times the power of a ten inch screen.

  • So where do I buy an actual panel?

    I can buy LCDs of many types from many vendors, but I've yet to see an OLED device. Even transflective LCD displays are hard to come by.

    • Sony store. You can pick up your $2500 11" OLED TV there. Some cellphones use OLED displays too, or so I've heard.

    • by toddestan (632714)

      They've been in some aftermarket car stereos for a while now, I had one I think 5-6 years ago in a Pioneer unit. So I really don't know what the big hold up is at this point - is it hard to make them in color or something? (the car stereo I had was monochrome with a blue-greenish color to the display)

  • Isn't this like incorporating a hard drive and 5.1 surround sound into an 8-track player?

    e-books are, by far, the dumbest invention ever made.

    I know of very few institutions which use them, and those tend to have captive audiences who only use their "e-libraries" as a very small part of overall services.

    The e-book is deader than 8-track. Enough already sony.

    Why not go into military development, actually make the "kill stick" fred dreamed up at megatokyo.

    • PDAs and smartphones were declared dead when they didn't blossom with early adopters. The same can be said for laptops. When Apple released the iPhone, suddenly everyone in the world is considering a smart phone when they wouldn't have previously.

      I hate paper books. I love to read, but I largely stopped reading paper books years ago. If the Kindle weren't horribly expensive, I'd buy one.

      In truth, I think you'll find that a standalone e-reader is not likely to be a huge success, a smart phone with a OLED

      • e-books were introduced more than a decade ago.

        Their DRM schemes make blu-ray's byzantine system look simple and streamlined.

        There are faqs in the few websites which use e-books with questions like "i followed the install instructions on my windows machine and it's not working", and answers like "we're getting around to supporting your platform [windows], and btw if you have mac or linux just come in and read the physical copy, you're boned"

        • I'm not sure what format you're talking about, but one of the problems with e-books is how many formats there are out there.

          What I suggested is smart phones operating directly as e-readers. Given that smart phones can already open text, pdf, doc, and other formats, there is no major hurdle here, and all those formats can be read and transferred on all three platforms. Further more, if you want some proprietary, DRM-ridden e-book, smart phones would allow you to download the book directly from the internet

          • I don't see how your PC platform even comes into play there.

            adobe can't even get their own ebook reader to read their own format on their primary platform.

            And the point is they actually CAN, but don't consider it worth the resources.

            Its a dead format, the subject of punch lines around the mountain dew cooler.

            • What reader are you talking about?

              I've never once had a single issue opening a PDF on a Mac, a PC, a Linux box, or any variety of smart phone.

              Your dead format just had increased sales, and again, with the advent of smart phones and Amazon's new e-book store (to which Amazon said they'd consider allowing outside devices to buy directly from), I think you're going to see a major new push.

              • it was some encrypted-to-hell ebook format based off adobe pdf's with an "etd" file extension (every file called ebx.etd)

    • e-books are, by far, the dumbest invention ever made.

      For story-type reading (fiction, historical, basically anything without large images or detailed drawings), they're fantastic. You'll have to pry my Sony PRS 505 out of my cold dead hands.

      - 400+ books on my reader (with room for a lot more)
      - No DRM on my book files (Baen publishing, Project Gutenberg)
      - 2-4 weeks of battery life
      - Weight about equal to a large format paperback
      - Reasonably sized screen with adjustable text size
      - Cost under $300 (s
  • "including one stunning ultra-portable with no hinge and a single display for both screen and keyboard"

    I saw this mock-up (and the other two) and it is the most stupid thing I've ever seen, with one make-believe OLED display that, when the lid of the device was opened, caused the folded-up display to partially unfold to a length that covered the area normally covered by both the display and keyboard of an ordinary portable. Hard to see the point of this, and even harder to type on the display. (No touch sen

  • by famebait (450028) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @03:32PM (#26437907)

    Forget about flexible. Sure, it sounds sexy, but who really cares? The roll-up stuff will probably not withstand normal wear very well in any case.

    Why are all the new display technologies like oled and e-paper mainly being marketed on the unimportant qulaities like flexibility?

    The real appeal of OLED is the simplicity, i.e. thinness and low cost. Only incrementally from before at first, but the simplicity is really orders of magnitude away from everything else. So once the tech is solid (i.e. good lifetime and low defect rates) and production scaled up, they will be so cheap it's silly.

    The real appeal of e-paper is good reflective contrast. i.e not only high contrast, but contrast that gets better in stronger light, and in general better contrast than any screen you have seen. This is something absolutely nothing else can offer right now (electrowetting might eventually, but it's still stricly lab stuff. It promises color, though, so stay tuned on that one). People tend to forget, or not understand, how important this is, even when they talk about books being better to tread than on-screen. But once most peopole have seen a really good one, I think the penny will drop. I wish they'd forget about flexibility and persistence for now and just focus on getting them fast, reliable, cheap and even higher resolution. this is something I'd want on my laptop right now. Work on that other stuff after they've become _good_, and popular.

    On oleds I have the impression thay _are_ working on the right stuff, flexible is just a by-product and makes headlines. For e-paper, i'm not so sure.

    • by smaddox (928261)

      I agree completely. If portability is the goal, you can easily create a foldable device with 2 screens with a minimal seem between each one. This is something I would love to see, by the way. An e-book reader that is nearly letter sized, but folds up to fit in your pocket would be amazing.

  • by kobotronic (240246) on Tuesday January 13, 2009 @03:58PM (#26438355)

    The OLED flex demo video shows at least two dead pixel rows, and the display doesn't even flex all that much, carefully bending in only one direction. This is very similar performance to "flexible OLED" demos we've seen for the past five years: The tech is so far away from commercial reality it's hardly worth demo'ing on a tradeshow alongside with commercially available tech.

  • I wonder what the real price of it would be without the Sony (I'm better than any other company so I can charge what I want) markup.
  • Who needs a TV nowadays? Who even watches TV nowadays? I don't know anybody who really watches TV. They zap when they're veeery bored... only to discover that nothing's on, and well... hang in front of it for no reason, and feeling bad afterwards.
    Many don't even have a TV anymore. All the good stuff is available via torrent. And then it goes on my beamer and sound system.

    TV, Fax machine, Morse ticker, broadcast (non-internet) radio, paper mail... those are all anachronisms to me. Sorry.

  • The ultraportable seems nice. But without a tactile input, it's somewhere between an annoyance and completely useless, depending on what you need. Who can afford to look at the keyboard (which is tiny too, so you sure hit the wrong keys every now and then.) when doing real work with it, or playing a real game with it?

    Sure it's cool for those mouse-only people. But come on...

How many NASA managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? "That's a known problem... don't worry about it."

Working...