Talk:AMOLED

Advantages: compared to what?

I think that the "advantages" section should explain what is it comparing the AMOLED with. Otherwise, it will become obsolete very soon. Guillep2k (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is comparing Amoled to regular LED.

I'm no Wikipedia expert, but does the author's speculation ("Display Media Degredation" 2nd paragraph) belong in the article?

Agreed, this should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.131.2 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12.148.86.3 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison should be to LCD, LED or Incandescent backlit. People tend to get confused about OLED "in theory" as presented on pages devoted to the theoretical concept behind the technology, and the "reality" of production OLED devices. The only true advantages of OLED come from their physical size and their power consumption. Even the quality of the blacks on handheld devices (which is an often used advantage for OLED screens in general) is questionable. The main measurable benefits are decreased power consumption for comparable screen size, and less physical volume of the phone's limited internal space required to house the requisite electronics. Thus many OLED phones have one or more "extra" advantage over phones with conventional LCD technology (regardless of backlight). They are either overall smaller/thinner/lighter, or they are equipped with a better front facing camera (2MP in the case of the Samsung phonse).68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

power consumption compared to LED backlit LCD

in the article it says "lower consumption". would be nice if anyone could provide data of how much lower it is compared to a LED backlit LCD in %.

Agree. Could also use Watts/Lumen or Watts per square centimeter (of white) for AMOLED and passive OLED to show how significant the claimed difference is. Rod57 (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also [this suggests SLCD uses less power than AMOLED. Rod57 (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so far AMOLED-equipped phones have shown significantly worse real-world battery-life than more conventional LCD display technologies. All the battery life tests I've seen have placed AMOLED phones middle to dead bottom; Example: http://www.intomobile.com/2010/08/25/droid-x-tops-all-android-superphones-in-battery-life-tests/ 80.194.235.31 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advertorial?

This looks like it was written by somebody at Samsung. Should it be better to create an article about 'super amoled' and link it from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.80.0.77 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. Someone should search for blocks of the text in that section to see if it was pulled from a press release or something similar. Super AMOLED sounds like great technology from the advertorial-sounding text, but I would have rather decided that for myself based on unbiased and empirical data than to be told how fantastic it is. It looks like it was just slapped into the article by a Super AMOLED fan without much thought. Jamouse (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through some scholarly articles I've found that Super AMOLED is a marketing term for Samsung's take on AMOLED module in-cell touch sensors. It appears to me that Samsung developed their own fabrication process and did their own research for developing the technology, but they are not the only company doing R&D in the area of in-cell touch sensors. I also found AU Optronics has developed a similar technology that meets the same ends, though they are an OEM and lack a marketing term for their product. Since the "Super AMOLED" section is so poorly written as of my writing this (e.g.: "The main difference between a Samsung Super AMOLED and AMOLED is that touch is integrated into the screen instead of an extra layer on top of it." "Color is more vivid and natural, viewing angles are improved since that extra touch layer is removed with better light transmittance."), and it sources a press release from Samsung and a technology blog, I am removing it and replacing it with a subheading on in-cell touch panels. I hope an expert can come in and remove the section I am adding and deem it irrelevant to the AMOLED article, or re-write it. Organic electroluminescent displays and thin film transistor arrays are not my area by a longshot. Jamouse (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super AMOLED has an on-cell capacitive touch sensor rather than in-cell. The capacitive sensing grid is etched on the top glass of the display rather than integrated in the pixel structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.118.108.82 (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this can help

http://campus.fct.unl.pt/ef/amorphous_oxides_semiconductors.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.41.97 (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear how relevant that is. Title is "Multicomponentwide band gap oxide semicondutors for thin film transistors" and it seems to focus on conductivity of transparent conductive layers. Not much specific to AMOLED ? Rod57 (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is an article on a commercial technology, not on theoretical/experimental research topic of conductive organic polymers, OLED in general, or organic solar cells. Samsung has patents for a particular collection of materials, design, synthesis/manufacturing of those materials, and the manufacture/fabrication of the screens themselves. Continuing research in the field of OLED and organic polymers in general, is not relevant to a highly specific commercial product that is essentially "set in stone," as it has to meet many hundreds of various government regulatory tests and verifications before being sold. The technology may be refreshed periodically, but there are at least 100 research papers published in the major international journals in materials science and chemistry in this field. None of those results are relevant here.68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

How is "AMOLED" generally pronounced? A pronunciation key might be a nice addition to this article. 207.67.73.40 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'd love to see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitchhollister (talk • contribs) 03:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marketing speak

"Ultra" thin and "ultra" bright? That doesn't mean anything and sounds like marketing-speak. How about "thin and bright"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.94.188 (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Someone's removed the 'ultra's. Rod57 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amoled

Changed Amoled to redirect here and added "for song see...". PizzaMan (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sales

AMOLED market was about $1.4 billion in 2010 and it will grow to $12.8 billion in 2015 (DisplayBank) [1]

According to iSupply, in 2010 49.4 million AMOLED displays shipped bringing in a total of $892 million. This will grow to 271 million units in 2015 - to reach $3.6 billion in revenue [2]

iSupply estimates that 2011 shipments will total 73.7 million [3]

— Ark25 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]