|
||||||||
OLED tv prices |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,905
|
OLED tv prices
At the moment they are quite expensive, How long, do you reckon, when they'll be down to todays LED prices?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Many years away, as far as I know only LG are making these large size panels.
Prices won't fall until some other company starts making them or LCD/LED get's much closer to OLED in quality than it is at the moment. If OLED isn't selling well then prices might fall, I don't see it being very much though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,515
|
Quote:
Many years away, as far as I know only LG are making these large size panels.
Prices won't fall until some other company starts making them or LCD/LED get's much closer to OLED in quality than it is at the moment. If OLED isn't selling well then prices might fall, I don't see it being very much though. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
We've been told that Panasonic will have more OLED sets in the 2017 range but no idea on pricing yet. They have really held off until flat OLD screens have become available. They did a 65" last year at the top end of the price scale as a toe-in-the-water experiment to see the viability and demand. They had no where near enough to supply the demand!
I think there are quite a lot of Plasma TV devotees that are waiting for OLED to really become a sensible option to replace their sets. The pq seems to be much more appealing on OLED than LCD to this group of people (myself included). Once the prices hit a tipping point that allows this group to justify the expense, they'll be a domino effect whereby the manufacturers sell more & so make more which in turn brings production costs down causing prices to come down which just restarts the cycle! Happened on LCD TVs years ago. Suddenly we saw people justify the extra cost over CRTs and within 18 months the prices had crashed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,722
|
Quote:
I think there are quite a lot of Plasma TV devotees that are waiting for OLED to really become a sensible option to replace their sets. The pq seems to be much more appealing on OLED than LCD to this group of people (myself included).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,774
|
Quote:
At the moment they are quite expensive, How long, do you reckon, when they'll be down to todays LED prices?
LG were the only company brave enough to see it through, and deserve to get something back from it. And as the only OLED panel manufacturer supply any other makes of OLED TV's - although I notice the promised Sony ones never materialised in 2016. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Quote:
Me too. My plasmas seem to be set to keep going for a few more years and by the time they expire, OLED it will have to be and hopefully sub £1,000 which is my tipping point for a say 55 incher.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Home-Cine...ywords=oled+tv I'm surprised at that price, I assume it's because it's a curved screen and people are not that keen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,722
|
Quote:
Amazon have a 55" OLED for a smidge over £1000
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Home-Cine...ywords=oled+tv I'm surprised at that price, I assume it's because it's a curved screen and people are not that keen. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Cheap tellies are stifling new product development. The TV market is tearing itself apart, and it was all so very very predictable.
LED (LCD) TVs are ridiculously cheap. Major brands can sell a 55" 4K smart TV for under £600. That's a huge amount of screen and technology for not much money at all. It's the same story pro rata for other screen sizes. Okay, it's possible to pay a lot more for a 55" telly, but when these cheap TVs are seen every week on supermarket shelves and they're plastered all over the web then it creates an impression of a benchmark price in consumer's minds; that all they have to pay and no more. Don't get me wrong, we all love reducing prices on consumer goods, but sometimes it works against the consumer's interests. OLED is a case in point. The huge investment being made in the development of the technology needs to be recouped. But the gulf in price between existing LCD and new OLED will continue to get wider as LCD prices continue to fall faster than OLED. A 55" 4K OLED is roughly £1,800. That's over three times the price of the cheaper LCD, and there's only one serious player in the market so there's not much product choice either. If consumers had a benchmark price of £1,000-£1,200 for 55" 4K smart LCD then maybe the TV industry would have some profits to invest and consumers would be willing to spend the extra £600-£800 for a visibly superior product. In fact, if the manufacturers hadn't gone for this race to the bottom then we might be seeing OLED right now from Sony and Panasonic too and maybe the price difference would be a couple of hundred quid. There's nothing like competition to sharpen the pricing pencil. As it stands now though it's a one horse race so really, what's the incentive? This time next year I predict that you won't be able to buy a TV over 40" in size that isn't 4K. Bush, Blaupunkt, Technika, Polaroid... all the cheap makes will all have 4K for the bulk of their ranges except bedroom sizes. They'll be crap, but they'll be 4K nonetheless. Major brands will hit sub £500 for 55" 4K and I wouldn't be surprised to see major brand 65" commonly available from under £600. The cheaper that common or garden TVs get then the harder the manufacturers have to work to generate the cash profits to keep their businesses afloat. The TV industry is starving itself to death. Vestel and the other cheap/badging makers are doing alright out of this but the majors with perhaps the exception of Samsung and possibly LG are hurting badly. Who is left... Sony and Panasonic? The rest are made under licence by Vestel and its competitors. Does that look like a healthy and sustainable business model to any of you? |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
Cheap tellies are stifling new product development. The TV market is tearing itself apart, and it was all so very very predictable.
LED (LCD) TVs are ridiculously cheap. Major brands can sell a 55" 4K smart TV for under £600. That's a huge amount of screen and technology for not much money at all. It's the same story pro rata for other screen sizes. Okay, it's possible to pay a lot more for a 55" telly, but when these cheap TVs are seen every week on supermarket shelves and they're plastered all over the web then it creates an impression of a benchmark price in consumer's minds; that all they have to pay and no more. Don't get me wrong, we all love reducing prices on consumer goods, but sometimes it works against the consumer's interests. OLED is a case in point. The huge investment being made in the development of the technology needs to be recouped. But the gulf in price between existing LCD and new OLED will continue to get wider as LCD prices continue to fall faster than OLED. A 55" 4K OLED is roughly £1,800. That's over three times the price of the cheaper LCD, and there's only one serious player in the market so there's not much product choice either. If consumers had a benchmark price of £1,000-£1,200 for 55" 4K smart LCD then maybe the TV industry would have some profits to invest and consumers would be willing to spend the extra £600-£800 for a visibly superior product. In fact, if the manufacturers hadn't gone for this race to the bottom then we might be seeing OLED right now from Sony and Panasonic too and maybe the price difference would be a couple of hundred quid. There's nothing like competition to sharpen the pricing pencil. As it stands now though it's a one horse race so really, what's the incentive? This time next year I predict that you won't be able to buy a TV over 40" in size that isn't 4K. Bush, Blaupunkt, Technika, Polaroid... all the cheap makes will all have 4K for the bulk of their ranges except bedroom sizes. They'll be crap, but they'll be 4K nonetheless. Major brands will hit sub £500 for 55" 4K and I wouldn't be surprised to see major brand 65" commonly available from under £600. The cheaper that common or garden TVs get then the harder the manufacturers have to work to generate the cash profits to keep their businesses afloat. The TV industry is starving itself to death. Vestel and the other cheap/badging makers are doing alright out of this but the majors with perhaps the exception of Samsung and possibly LG are hurting badly. Who is left... Sony and Panasonic? The rest are made under licence by Vestel and its competitors. Does that look like a healthy and sustainable business model to any of you? With both lower percentage margins & price erosion, there is far less profit from each sale made for the shop to survive on. The things they cut back on are training & staff quality which in turn leads to less people having knowledge about the kit & being able to explain and show why more expensive TVs are better which again leads to the masses buying lower end sets that stifles the development at the higher end. The consumer has also change massively over the last 20 years. When I started the question most often used was "what's the best TV I can get for £x" or "what TV do you recommend in this size?". Now a very common question is simply "what's the cheapest X inch TV that you have?". It seems that people desire for quality has gone, in preference for low cost, quickly replaced new toys. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,536
|
Well I bought the oled C6 over 3 month ago on a buy now pay in 12 month. That was £4000. It's now £2800 so I'd say prices are falling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,722
|
Quote:
The consumer has also change massively over the last 20 years. When I started the question most often used was "what's the best TV I can get for £x" or "what TV do you recommend in this size?". Now a very common question is simply "what's the cheapest X inch TV that you have?". It seems that people desire for quality has gone, in preference for low cost, quickly replaced new toys.
Hifi separates did survive though - at a price - and hopefully OLED technology will too but there is no guarantee of that as it *could* go the same way as Betamax and Plasma TVs. Who knows? |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
I think the reason why TVs have to be cheap these days is because the public don't value the TV-watching experience as much as they once did.
I mean, the same pressures exist in most of everything manufactured for public consumption. And yet it's still possible to sell expensive stuff to the masses. Just look what people are prepared to pay for a 'phone. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,722
|
Quote:
I mean, the same pressures exist in most of everything manufactured for public consumption. And yet it's still possible to sell expensive stuff to the masses.
Just look what people are prepared to pay for a 'phone. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
But it has always been so. I can recall similar arguments being made over audio hifi equipment in the 1970s and 80s as cheapo music centres gradually took over from better quality separates. It's an inevitable consequence of what starts off as niche technology and products eventually spreading to the masses - and competition for bulk sales to the masses instead of smaller sales to enthusiasts. Most people just want music (whatever quality) and TV (of any quality) and will get it at the lowest price possible if it makes them feel good when the neighbours visit.
Hifi separates did survive though - at a price - and hopefully OLED will too but there is no guarantee of that as it *could* go the same way as Betamax and Plasma TVs. Who knows? Music centres were replaced by stack systems towards the late 70s. However, that was also the start of a revolution in the separates market and perhaps even the audiophile golden era. The late 70s and early 80s brought a rash of new companies all keen to show how they had mastered transistor electronics to make audiophile gear more affordable than ever. Naim, A&R Cambridge (later ARCAM), Creek, Mission, Musical Fidelity, Meridian, Incatech (sp? ), Onix, Marantz, Rotel, Denon etc. These joined the established valve brands such as Sugden, Leek, Quad and others. Add to them turntables from Dual (a 70s and 80s stalwart), Revolver, Systemdek, AR, Thorens, Rega and speakers from Mission, Castle, Monitor Audio, Maudant Short, Linn, Wharfedale .... no, the 70s and definitely the 80s were bristling with good budget separates that wouldn't stret a student grant too much. The dealer networks improved dramatically too. Dixons might have been selling plenty of Amstrad towers, but at that time the audiophile separates market never looked better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
But it has always been so. I can recall similar arguments being made over audio hifi equipment in the 1970s and 80s as cheapo music centres gradually took over from better quality separates. It's an inevitable consequence of what starts off as niche technology and products eventually spreading to the masses - and competition for bulk sales to the masses instead of smaller sales to enthusiasts. Most people just want music (whatever quality) and TV (of any quality) and will get it at the lowest price possible if it makes them feel good when the neighbours visit.
Hifi separates did survive though - at a price - and hopefully OLED technology will too but there is no guarantee of that as it *could* go the same way as Betamax and Plasma TVs. Who knows? |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
There was a certain element of smoke and mirrors, not to say snake oil, about hifi too in those days. While I'm far from saying that everything the hifi mags and the industry were saying, there were mags touting things like "reversing the live and neutral connection", "putting a second CD in the drive to stabilize", put green marker pen on your CDs and using oxygen free cables for digital interconnects. They did real hi fi a big disservice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
There was a certain element of smoke and mirrors, not to say snake oil, about hifi too in those days. While I'm far from saying that everything the hifi mags and the industry were saying, there were mags touting things like "reversing the live and neutral connection", "putting a second CD in the drive to stabilize", put green marker pen on your CDs and using oxygen free cables for digital interconnects. They did real hi fi a big disservice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,774
|
Quote:
There was a certain element of smoke and mirrors, not to say snake oil, about hifi too in those days. While I'm far from saying that everything the hifi mags and the industry were saying, there were mags touting things like "reversing the live and neutral connection", "putting a second CD in the drive to stabilize", put green marker pen on your CDs and using oxygen free cables for digital interconnects. They did real hi fi a big disservice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
There was a certain element of smoke and mirrors, not to say snake oil, about hifi too in those days. While I'm far from saying that everything the hifi mags and the industry were saying, there were mags touting things like "reversing the live and neutral connection", "putting a second CD in the drive to stabilize", put green marker pen on your CDs and using oxygen free cables for digital interconnects. They did real hi fi a big disservice.
A lot of these ideas started out as experiments by enthusiasts who were motivated by the desire to get better sound from their systems. It wasn't for financial gain but for the pursuit of quality. The smoke and mirrors/snake oil bit comes when money enters the game. That and the ideas being promoted by sales people who are just following trends rather than listening to gear. Those type of people rarely have the buyer's interests at heart. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,877
|
Some of what they wrote was correct. There was a considerable audible improvement to be had by spending a little more on a careful selection of separates rather than a generic Japanese setup. Back in the day I was very happy with my Dual turntable, NAD tuner/amp and Kef speakers, and later my Mission CD player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,190
|
Some of today's LED televisions are the same price or more expensive than OLEDs.
Granted, these aren't 'average' prices but then these aren't 'average' televisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 439
|
Quote:
Cheap tellies are stifling new product development. The TV market is tearing itself apart, and it was all so very very predictable.
LED (LCD) TVs are ridiculously cheap. Major brands can sell a 55" 4K smart TV for under £600. That's a huge amount of screen and technology for not much money at all. It's the same story pro rata for other screen sizes. Okay, it's possible to pay a lot more for a 55" telly, but when these cheap TVs are seen every week on supermarket shelves and they're plastered all over the web then it creates an impression of a benchmark price in consumer's minds; that all they have to pay and no more. Don't get me wrong, we all love reducing prices on consumer goods, but sometimes it works against the consumer's interests. OLED is a case in point. The huge investment being made in the development of the technology needs to be recouped. But the gulf in price between existing LCD and new OLED will continue to get wider as LCD prices continue to fall faster than OLED. A 55" 4K OLED is roughly £1,800. That's over three times the price of the cheaper LCD, and there's only one serious player in the market so there's not much product choice either. If consumers had a benchmark price of £1,000-£1,200 for 55" 4K smart LCD then maybe the TV industry would have some profits to invest and consumers would be willing to spend the extra £600-£800 for a visibly superior product. In fact, if the manufacturers hadn't gone for this race to the bottom then we might be seeing OLED right now from Sony and Panasonic too and maybe the price difference would be a couple of hundred quid. There's nothing like competition to sharpen the pricing pencil. As it stands now though it's a one horse race so really, what's the incentive? This time next year I predict that you won't be able to buy a TV over 40" in size that isn't 4K. Bush, Blaupunkt, Technika, Polaroid... all the cheap makes will all have 4K for the bulk of their ranges except bedroom sizes. They'll be crap, but they'll be 4K nonetheless. Major brands will hit sub £500 for 55" 4K and I wouldn't be surprised to see major brand 65" commonly available from under £600. The cheaper that common or garden TVs get then the harder the manufacturers have to work to generate the cash profits to keep their businesses afloat. The TV industry is starving itself to death. Vestel and the other cheap/badging makers are doing alright out of this but the majors with perhaps the exception of Samsung and possibly LG are hurting badly. Who is left... Sony and Panasonic? The rest are made under licence by Vestel and its competitors. Does that look like a healthy and sustainable business model to any of you? Look at everything from phones to audio to kettles to freezers to humidifiers to cars. In every case there is a vast range of prices and tech but nobody has ever suggested the availability of items at the low end is stifling development at the high end. Anyone suggesting that consumers should be forced to buy more expensive products (by removing the cheaper ones) would be laughed off the planet. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 6,447
|
Quote:
This reads to me as a rant from somebody with a passion for high tech TVs who wants them subsidised by consumers paying inflated prices for their more run of the mill TVs. The argument does not stand up to comparison with virtually every other consumer item.
Look at everything from phones to audio to kettles to freezers to humidifiers to cars. In every case there is a vast range of prices and tech but nobody has ever suggested the availability of items at the low end is stifling development at the high end. Anyone suggesting that consumers should be forced to buy more expensive products (by removing the cheaper ones) would be laughed off the planet. ![]() First things first, don't panic. This is just a discussion in a forum. It's not going to change the course of the consumer industry. In fact is doesn't even register on their radar, they're not interested. If you're really interested in why I hold the views I do then I'll give you a little background so you can work from a better informed position. What you decide to think about me and my position after that is really none of my business though, but at least you might understand why I hold the views that I do. For almost three decades I've working in the video and audio electronics industry. I have held positions in retail, in commercial and broadcast equipment sales, distribution, and worked in several roles for a blue chip manufacturer. This means I have seen the industry from a lot of different sides. For the manufacturer I dealt with everything from small independent dealers right up to the national retailers including Currys/PC World (DSG as they were then), John Lewis, Comet (before their demise), the catalogue firms, Costco, Amazon, and Tesco. I had seen the TV retail business become commoditised. I can't recall if it was the European dealer launch in Portugal or Italy. I do remember delivering a press conference to some UK journalists and then later sharing drinks in the bar with Steve May and Tim Danton as we talked about the direction the industry was taking. Later in the week we hosted several flights worth of the UK independents and mini-multiples dealers. These were the businesses that should take the mid-range and high-end product ranges. But that particular year - 2004 or 2005 - the mood was very different. The interest was all in budget flatscreen. It caused a major rethink of the factory production planning. Product lines were scaled back and some scrapped completely. All this because the supermarkets got involved in TV in a big way and were punting out rubbish but at what appeared to be attractive prices. I realise you're probably still cynical about my reasons. I'm probably not going to change that for you, but in the end it doesn't really matter. The TV manufacturing industry won't put its own house in order for lots of reasons. So it will continues to work on ever greater losses to the point where there's perhaps one major brand left and then the badged product makers for everything else. I'll be less affected by it than most people because I calibrate TVs, projectors and commercial video products for a living. I can make even poor quality products perform far better after tinkering around in the service and calibration menus. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,190
|
Quote:
Look at everything from phones to audio to kettles to freezers to humidifiers to cars.
Mobile phones, particularly smart phones are still relatively new items. The development process & speed is huge (although seemingly slowing) and the is one single brand that has a magical hold on it's fan base. Without Apple keeping the prices high, know that people will still buy them, the other manufacturers would not be able to hold the prices that do & in some case are struggling with already. Phones have become status symbols, fashion accessories & must have objects. Something that TVs were 30-40 years ago. Kettles, heck they're available at most supermarkets, diy stores, department stores for less than £6. Kettles don't really have anywhere to develop anymore. Styling is the only thing that people pay for on a kettle. The last bit of development for kettles was the flat element, before that cordless, before that the auto switch off & before that making them electric instead of having to sit over an open flame. You can't stifle development on something that has nowhere to develop. Freezers (& fridges) are only really developing along style & energy efficiency. The higher end, more expensive brands are still doing the donkey work to bring down energy consumption which then trickles down to the lower cost machines. Some big brands no longer make entry level products because the pricing at the bottom end just doesn't justify their efforts. Yeah their kit might last longer and use less power but the consumer doesn't care because "that one's £90 less, it'll do, it's only a freezer". Car (& all their associated technologies) development is almost always funded by the big brands, at the top end of the pricing structure, with the most money that are looking to move forward (I'll include Tesla in this because although not a big brand in production numbers terms yet, they are at the high end on price and development). The GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW, VW & Mercedes of the world are the companies that develop the latest innovations and include thing on their cars first that trickle down to the other brands later one. It's unlikely for a long time that brands like Kia, Dacia, & Hyundai will be at the very cutting edge of development. They'll do a very good job of taking existing tech to the masses and more reasonable prices but won't the ones developing it. The Automotive industry is also totally different to the consumer electronics industry. The automotive industry from what I've seen, is based almost totally around the franchise model. You can only sell a manufacturers brand new stock after meeting strict conditions & complying essentially with their pricing model. You only get to be a dealer if the manufacturer deems you to be a fit and appropriate person to sell their brand. Whereas, if I had sufficient funds and credit rating, the consumer electronics industry are essentially unable to stop me setting up an account to buy from them. They have been stripped of the ability to control the pricing which means reputable sellers that have provided fantastic advice, service, demo rooms, repair centres etc.. have to compete with people that are happy to sell high volumes of product & not the backup/service that goes with it. Box shifters making 5% on items without the overheads, drive down the margins for the proper shops & sellers, who in turn demand better prices from the manufacturer that then tries to make lower cost items and everything goes down hill. Causalities of this have been what were big name brands like JVC, Philips, Hitachi, Sharp, Toshiba, Mitsubishi & Pioneer. 20 years ago, all of these brands were big names in the industry, all have big R&D budget and they all pushed each other on to make better products and create the next big thing. One by one they have all either pulled out of consumer electronics completely, sold off that division or now simply licence the name to other manufacturers/shops. The reason? There simply isn't enough margin on consumer electronics products in general to sustain them. Often their commercial divisions are still going strong, but their name on the High st is gone or essentially fake. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:03.



