6 ms·

The thing is: can I buy a big OLED and use it for whatever, without doing anything special to take care of it, and not have it suffer from burn in 10 years from

by oblio 3y ago

The thing is: can I buy a big OLED and use it for whatever, without doing anything special to take care of it, and not have it suffer from burn in 10 years from now?

RamRodification 3y ago
The (tinfoil hat?) thing about the thing is: Does Samsung actually want their TVs to survive a whole 10 years?
- golergka 3y ago
  Do consumers want to pay the premium for such a TV? And would those that do choose Samsung?
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    The problem is Trust. Consumers don't trust manufavturers. If I pay 2x premium I have zero trust the product is better made or will last longer. My $300 laptop worked for 10 years, $3000 laptop has issues after 2 years. We have a Toshiba TV that has lasted 15 years. Kinda getting to the end of it's usefull life - its 720p. On the other hand, I don't expect image technology to advance at the same rate any more, we are at the usefull limit of resolution for example. So maybe if I was buying today, I would actually keep the TV for 20 years.
    - golergka 3y ago
      > Consumers don't trust manufavturers. If I pay 2x premium I have zero trust the product is better made or will last longer. My $300 laptop worked for 10 years, $3000 laptop has issues after 2 years. I'm confused — why are you talking about trusting "manufacturers" as a whole? Isn't the whole point of your anecdote that one manufacturer is trustworthy and the other is not?
      - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
        As far as I am concerned, none of them can be trusted. For me there is no way to know which product is designed to last - I bought a few that are, by random chance alone. Well maybe there are a handful, in some markets, but Miele does not make TVs
        golergka 3y ago
        I don't really know much about TVs, but in my experience, Apple certainly makes long-lasting products — my 2008 and 2012 macbooks and 2014 phone are still in good shape, albeit with dead batteries. In cars, from a second-hand experience (I don't drive and hope to never start), Volvo still has great quality. Personally, I know more about clothes. Once you switch from fast fashion (Zara, Bershka, Uniqlo) to quality brands (for me, it's Rick Owens, Margiela, Thom Krom and McQueen, adjust for your personal style), they do last a lot longer — I still wear T-shirts that I bought in 2016. However, it means that I shop much less often, own much less clothes and they're all the same style (and the same colour — full black). And I see that people pay lip service to degrading quality, but what majority of them _actually_ want is a lot of regular dopamine from shopping and a wide variety of garments. You can eat out at fast-food everyday, or spend the same budget to eat at a Michelin-stared place once a couple of weeks (1 star; 2 or 3 stars it would be once a month or more). People tend to choose the former, but then blame "the industry" for their own choices.
- oblio 3y ago
  That's the thing about the thing about the thing, I have a 10 year old Samsung LCD that's just fine.
  - nisegami 3y ago
    Is it actually just fine, or have you not noticed the slow and gradual degradation of its color accuracy and brightness?
    - oblio 3y ago
      I haven't noticed it. So it's not a problem. I DO notice OLED burn-in, so that <<is>> a problem.
  - memcg 3y ago
    I have 7 LN46A's now and left over parts from others that had panel defects.
- gary_0 3y ago
  Considering that most of them are Internet-connected now, they can just stop patching the firmware to obsolete them. TV takes 10 minutes to load Netflix because it's part of a botnet? Better buy a new one.
  - edgineer 3y ago
    With smartphones this would be a problem. With TVs you do still always have the option to use it disconnected/dumb with your own computer, chromecast, TV box, console, whatever.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tirpen 3y ago
    Oh, Samsung are already "accidentally" sending out broken patches to TVs that happen to brick them. Coincidentally this happens just a few months after their warranty expires. Whoopsie! It happened to me and it happened to a friend of mine, just a few months apart. Never ever connect a Samsung TV to the Internet under any circumstances.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I'll take it one step further: never plug in a Samsung TV. Or better yet, never let one into your home.
    - Swenrekcah 3y ago
      This might backfire in EU countries since EU consumer protection laws require extended warranty for devices expected to last longer. For TVs it's 5 years I believe. So if they're bricked after two years you could take it to the retailer.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    If a corporation like Samsung became evil, I wonder if they could make a bunch of money running a DDOS botnet and attacking other casinos or something.
lucideer 3y ago
Is burn in still a thing? I was under the impression burn in rate had been reduced to a reasonably negligible value in modern OLEDs.
- lmpdev 3y ago
  Yes, burn in still exists for new flagship OLED panels But you're very unlikely to experience it compared to past technologies, even if you are displaying a static image for extremely long periods
  - wccrawford 3y ago
    Plus, the TVs have good default settings to prevent it even if you're negligent.
    - oblio 3y ago
      > even if you're negligent. It's a TV!!! There shouldn't be any "negligent" :-) Some people are fine with tiptoeing around the problem, I imagine most people just don't do anything and mess up their TV. I shouldn't have to configure FVWM for 20 days to be able to operate the appliance correctly.
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        CRTs had the same problem for decades, so while I agree it shouldn’t I’m certainly not unfamiliar.
      - jdmichal 3y ago
        CRT TVs automatically degaussed every time they were turned on...
      - wccrawford 3y ago
        You wouldn't have to configure anything, even on older TVs. But there are things you can do that will eventually harm it, like leave the same bright image on the TV for hours. That's negligence, especially if the manual tells you not to. The newer TVs can detect that scenario and turn the TV off automatically, unless you specifically disable that setting. TVs are a luxury good, and there will always be ways to be negligent with anything. Leaving them out in the rain is negligent. Some cleaners will harm the screen, I'm sure. Using them in a too-hot or too-cold environment will harm them. I don't expect my TV to be battle-hardened, and I'm certainly not going to pay the price for that. Instead, I'll take care of it.
zelos 3y ago
Rtings are doing a major test which seems to indicate it's not a major issue for the majority of modern OLEDS: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updates-and-results https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updat...
- Gareth321 3y ago
  Some of these look pretty rough. I would be pissed if my TV had the burn-in I see with some of those Sonys, for example.
  - zelos 3y ago
    There is a mix of newer and older OLED and LED TVs in there, and that is 6 months, 20 hours a day of watching CNN. That said, it doesn't look quite as good as the last time I checked on the results. The new QD-OLEDs seem to do worse than standard OLEDs.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    If anything I am impressed. They are running these at max brightness with static images on screen for 20 hours a day. I would have guessed the burn in would have been way worse.
- ben7799 3y ago
  There's no control images there to tell you how much it actually degraded. The panels might not be uniform when brand new either.
  - Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
    At the top of the table, you can choose to view month 0, which would be the day they started the test. There's your control.
rickdeckard 3y ago
"burn-in" on OLED is actually the degradation of brightness of LEDs based on their operation hours. The impact is just more noticable on OLED because the pixels degrade individually (instead of LED-LCDs, where both brightness and color degrades uniformly across the whole zone of the backlight) There's lots of methods now to make this degradation more uniform on OLED, like slightly shifting the image to distribute the load onto multiple subpixels, "cleaning" the panel when its switched off, down to measuring the operating hours of individual pictures and adjusting the brightness of surrounding pixels to blend the degradation. Overall you can choose what you want to degrade over those 10 years: The LED brightness and color-accuracy of a whole zone / backlight unit (LED-LCD), or have the OLED panel actively compensate its aging (which has gotten ALOT better in the past years) Either way, I wouldn't put my money on QLED (which is not a technology but a brand). QLED is actually far worse on lifetime than OLED [1], but as it was driven by the marketing powerhouse of Samsung this information is barely known. Considering how expensive it is to produce and that it was basically only made by Samsung to buy time until they can produce OLED as well, I wouldn't expect it to become actually a mature technology. It's more likely that they will replace the Quantum Dot backlight with something cheaper and still keep the brand "QLED" (if they haven't done that already). AH-IPS LCD panels with zoned LED backlight probably still provide the most stable picture quality over longer time of use, compromising on image-quality compared to OLED. But the last really good TV with such a panel was produced quite a few years ago already... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08749-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08749-2
- oblio 3y ago
  I don't care much about average panel degradation. I do care about seeing ghost letters or shapes on top of the latest TV series I'm watching. Edit: The QLED article is from 2019, that's quite a few yers ago for cutting edge tech. I imagine tech is constantly improving.
  - rickdeckard 3y ago
    You'll be fine with any of the existing technologies of today. In either case you will see luminance degradation over time, in case of LED-LCD or QLED also color-shifts of backlight zones. But none of this is new. In reality, I barely heard people complain about their LCDs becoming more and more weak in brightness and color-tinted (usually yellow) each year. And yet, all of this happened to 100% of all LED-LCD panels. > Edit: The QLED article is from 2019, that's quite a few yers ago for cutting edge tech. I imagine tech is constantly improving. Yeah, there's alot of research ongoing to improve QD lifetime as a foundation for new LED technology. Here's one from Dec.2022 [1], and one from as late as 2023 [2], all with the subject of solving performance stability of the technology to become on-par (!) with common LED. [1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsaelm.2c01351 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsaelm.2c01351 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36990060/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36990060/
layer8 3y ago
You should certainly be prepared to buy a new TV/monitor after 10 years of regular use, with OLED. If not burn-in or color drift, brightness is likely to decrease noticeably.
klausa 3y ago
The real answer is that it doesn't matter: vast majority people buying bleeding-edge OLED TVs (yours truly included) will not use the same TV for 10 years. And for exactly the same reason most people buying high-end computers and phones won't — the tech will have moved on in 5 years to such a degree that newer products will be significantly better.
- tenebrisalietum 3y ago
  I bought a 43" Sanyo LCD TV (720p) in 2004 that still works today. It's good enough for movies. I have a 15" Samsung CRT TV from the 90's that still works great. I use it for retrogaming. > vast majority people buying bleeding-edge OLED TVs (yours truly included) will not use the same TV for 10 years. IMHO people mostly upgrade their TV because a bigger one comes out. At some point we will reach the maximum practical size for a home TV (kinda like CD drives maxed out at 52x) and then I think people will buy them less. TVs are already kinda cheap and boring and if they don't keep getting bigger, the average consumer will eventually treat it as a commodity item (and maybe it will be priced that way too).
  - jaredhallen 3y ago
    I agree. I am a moderate TV user. I bought a new one about 3 years ago, and went with a 65". I could have fit an 80 on the wall, but it didn't seem necessary. And I'm glad I didn't. The 65" is already too big if you get up off the couch and stand nearer to it. It's kind of disorienting to watch from any closer than the opposite side of the room. And it was a mid-range TV at the time and still looks plenty good for me. I don't foresee upgrading anytime soon, unless something goes wrong. Honestly the thing I like the least about it has nothing to do with the display. It's the annoying Android software.
  - klausa 3y ago
    Sure, but then by your description you're not someone who's interested in buying bleeding edge tech (at least not for TV's). I'm not saying those people don't exist — they clearly do! But those are not people who buy the most expensive/best TV's on the market.

by oblio 3y ago

The thing is: can I buy a big OLED and use it for whatever, without doing anything special to take care of it, and not have it suffer from burn in 10 years from now?

RamRodification 3y ago

The (tinfoil hat?) thing about the thing is: Does Samsung actually want their TVs to survive a whole 10 years?

golergka 3y ago
Do consumers want to pay the premium for such a TV? And would those that do choose Samsung?
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  The problem is Trust. Consumers don't trust manufavturers. If I pay 2x premium I have zero trust the product is better made or will last longer. My $300 laptop worked for 10 years, $3000 laptop has issues after 2 years. We have a Toshiba TV that has lasted 15 years. Kinda getting to the end of it's usefull life - its 720p. On the other hand, I don't expect image technology to advance at the same rate any more, we are at the usefull limit of resolution for example. So maybe if I was buying today, I would actually keep the TV for 20 years.
  - golergka 3y ago
    > Consumers don't trust manufavturers. If I pay 2x premium I have zero trust the product is better made or will last longer. My $300 laptop worked for 10 years, $3000 laptop has issues after 2 years. I'm confused — why are you talking about trusting "manufacturers" as a whole? Isn't the whole point of your anecdote that one manufacturer is trustworthy and the other is not?
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      As far as I am concerned, none of them can be trusted. For me there is no way to know which product is designed to last - I bought a few that are, by random chance alone. Well maybe there are a handful, in some markets, but Miele does not make TVs
      - golergka 3y ago
        I don't really know much about TVs, but in my experience, Apple certainly makes long-lasting products — my 2008 and 2012 macbooks and 2014 phone are still in good shape, albeit with dead batteries. In cars, from a second-hand experience (I don't drive and hope to never start), Volvo still has great quality. Personally, I know more about clothes. Once you switch from fast fashion (Zara, Bershka, Uniqlo) to quality brands (for me, it's Rick Owens, Margiela, Thom Krom and McQueen, adjust for your personal style), they do last a lot longer — I still wear T-shirts that I bought in 2016. However, it means that I shop much less often, own much less clothes and they're all the same style (and the same colour — full black). And I see that people pay lip service to degrading quality, but what majority of them _actually_ want is a lot of regular dopamine from shopping and a wide variety of garments. You can eat out at fast-food everyday, or spend the same budget to eat at a Michelin-stared place once a couple of weeks (1 star; 2 or 3 stars it would be once a month or more). People tend to choose the former, but then blame "the industry" for their own choices.
oblio 3y ago
That's the thing about the thing about the thing, I have a 10 year old Samsung LCD that's just fine.
- nisegami 3y ago
  Is it actually just fine, or have you not noticed the slow and gradual degradation of its color accuracy and brightness?
  - oblio 3y ago
    I haven't noticed it. So it's not a problem. I DO notice OLED burn-in, so that <<is>> a problem.
- memcg 3y ago
  I have 7 LN46A's now and left over parts from others that had panel defects.
gary_0 3y ago
Considering that most of them are Internet-connected now, they can just stop patching the firmware to obsolete them. TV takes 10 minutes to load Netflix because it's part of a botnet? Better buy a new one.
- edgineer 3y ago
  With smartphones this would be a problem. With TVs you do still always have the option to use it disconnected/dumb with your own computer, chromecast, TV box, console, whatever.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- tirpen 3y ago
  Oh, Samsung are already "accidentally" sending out broken patches to TVs that happen to brick them. Coincidentally this happens just a few months after their warranty expires. Whoopsie! It happened to me and it happened to a friend of mine, just a few months apart. Never ever connect a Samsung TV to the Internet under any circumstances.
  - vel0city 3y ago
    I'll take it one step further: never plug in a Samsung TV. Or better yet, never let one into your home.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    This might backfire in EU countries since EU consumer protection laws require extended warranty for devices expected to last longer. For TVs it's 5 years I believe. So if they're bricked after two years you could take it to the retailer.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  If a corporation like Samsung became evil, I wonder if they could make a bunch of money running a DDOS botnet and attacking other casinos or something.

lucideer 3y ago

Is burn in still a thing? I was under the impression burn in rate had been reduced to a reasonably negligible value in modern OLEDs.

lmpdev 3y ago
Yes, burn in still exists for new flagship OLED panels But you're very unlikely to experience it compared to past technologies, even if you are displaying a static image for extremely long periods
- wccrawford 3y ago
  Plus, the TVs have good default settings to prevent it even if you're negligent.
  - oblio 3y ago
    > even if you're negligent. It's a TV!!! There shouldn't be any "negligent" :-) Some people are fine with tiptoeing around the problem, I imagine most people just don't do anything and mess up their TV. I shouldn't have to configure FVWM for 20 days to be able to operate the appliance correctly.
    - actionfromafar 3y ago
      CRTs had the same problem for decades, so while I agree it shouldn’t I’m certainly not unfamiliar.
    - jdmichal 3y ago
      CRT TVs automatically degaussed every time they were turned on...
    - wccrawford 3y ago
      You wouldn't have to configure anything, even on older TVs. But there are things you can do that will eventually harm it, like leave the same bright image on the TV for hours. That's negligence, especially if the manual tells you not to. The newer TVs can detect that scenario and turn the TV off automatically, unless you specifically disable that setting. TVs are a luxury good, and there will always be ways to be negligent with anything. Leaving them out in the rain is negligent. Some cleaners will harm the screen, I'm sure. Using them in a too-hot or too-cold environment will harm them. I don't expect my TV to be battle-hardened, and I'm certainly not going to pay the price for that. Instead, I'll take care of it.

zelos 3y ago

Rtings are doing a major test which seems to indicate it's not a major issue for the majority of modern OLEDS: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updates-and-results https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/longevity-burn-in-test-updat...

Gareth321 3y ago
Some of these look pretty rough. I would be pissed if my TV had the burn-in I see with some of those Sonys, for example.
- zelos 3y ago
  There is a mix of newer and older OLED and LED TVs in there, and that is 6 months, 20 hours a day of watching CNN. That said, it doesn't look quite as good as the last time I checked on the results. The new QD-OLEDs seem to do worse than standard OLEDs.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  If anything I am impressed. They are running these at max brightness with static images on screen for 20 hours a day. I would have guessed the burn in would have been way worse.
ben7799 3y ago
There's no control images there to tell you how much it actually degraded. The panels might not be uniform when brand new either.
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  At the top of the table, you can choose to view month 0, which would be the day they started the test. There's your control.

rickdeckard 3y ago

"burn-in" on OLED is actually the degradation of brightness of LEDs based on their operation hours. The impact is just more noticable on OLED because the pixels degrade individually (instead of LED-LCDs, where both brightness and color degrades uniformly across the whole zone of the backlight) There's lots of methods now to make this degradation more uniform on OLED, like slightly shifting the image to distribute the load onto multiple subpixels, "cleaning" the panel when its switched off, down to measuring the operating hours of individual pictures and adjusting the brightness of surrounding pixels to blend the degradation. Overall you can choose what you want to degrade over those 10 years: The LED brightness and color-accuracy of a whole zone / backlight unit (LED-LCD), or have the OLED panel actively compensate its aging (which has gotten ALOT better in the past years) Either way, I wouldn't put my money on QLED (which is not a technology but a brand). QLED is actually far worse on lifetime than OLED [1], but as it was driven by the marketing powerhouse of Samsung this information is barely known. Considering how expensive it is to produce and that it was basically only made by Samsung to buy time until they can produce OLED as well, I wouldn't expect it to become actually a mature technology. It's more likely that they will replace the Quantum Dot backlight with something cheaper and still keep the brand "QLED" (if they haven't done that already). AH-IPS LCD panels with zoned LED backlight probably still provide the most stable picture quality over longer time of use, compromising on image-quality compared to OLED. But the last really good TV with such a panel was produced quite a few years ago already... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08749-2 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08749-2

oblio 3y ago
I don't care much about average panel degradation. I do care about seeing ghost letters or shapes on top of the latest TV series I'm watching. Edit: The QLED article is from 2019, that's quite a few yers ago for cutting edge tech. I imagine tech is constantly improving.
- rickdeckard 3y ago
  You'll be fine with any of the existing technologies of today. In either case you will see luminance degradation over time, in case of LED-LCD or QLED also color-shifts of backlight zones. But none of this is new. In reality, I barely heard people complain about their LCDs becoming more and more weak in brightness and color-tinted (usually yellow) each year. And yet, all of this happened to 100% of all LED-LCD panels. > Edit: The QLED article is from 2019, that's quite a few yers ago for cutting edge tech. I imagine tech is constantly improving. Yeah, there's alot of research ongoing to improve QD lifetime as a foundation for new LED technology. Here's one from Dec.2022 [1], and one from as late as 2023 [2], all with the subject of solving performance stability of the technology to become on-par (!) with common LED. [1] https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsaelm.2c01351 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsaelm.2c01351 [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36990060/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36990060/

layer8 3y ago

You should certainly be prepared to buy a new TV/monitor after 10 years of regular use, with OLED. If not burn-in or color drift, brightness is likely to decrease noticeably.

klausa 3y ago

The real answer is that it doesn't matter: vast majority people buying bleeding-edge OLED TVs (yours truly included) will not use the same TV for 10 years. And for exactly the same reason most people buying high-end computers and phones won't — the tech will have moved on in 5 years to such a degree that newer products will be significantly better.

tenebrisalietum 3y ago
I bought a 43" Sanyo LCD TV (720p) in 2004 that still works today. It's good enough for movies. I have a 15" Samsung CRT TV from the 90's that still works great. I use it for retrogaming. > vast majority people buying bleeding-edge OLED TVs (yours truly included) will not use the same TV for 10 years. IMHO people mostly upgrade their TV because a bigger one comes out. At some point we will reach the maximum practical size for a home TV (kinda like CD drives maxed out at 52x) and then I think people will buy them less. TVs are already kinda cheap and boring and if they don't keep getting bigger, the average consumer will eventually treat it as a commodity item (and maybe it will be priced that way too).
- jaredhallen 3y ago
  I agree. I am a moderate TV user. I bought a new one about 3 years ago, and went with a 65". I could have fit an 80 on the wall, but it didn't seem necessary. And I'm glad I didn't. The 65" is already too big if you get up off the couch and stand nearer to it. It's kind of disorienting to watch from any closer than the opposite side of the room. And it was a mid-range TV at the time and still looks plenty good for me. I don't foresee upgrading anytime soon, unless something goes wrong. Honestly the thing I like the least about it has nothing to do with the display. It's the annoying Android software.
- klausa 3y ago
  Sure, but then by your description you're not someone who's interested in buying bleeding edge tech (at least not for TV's). I'm not saying those people don't exist — they clearly do! But those are not people who buy the most expensive/best TV's on the market.