I think that this is an amazing accomplishment, but Sony should have put it in a laptop because it is only 11". To be a T.V. that is extremely small. Sure this technology is alot more efficient, and alot more clear it should be a laptop screen not stand alone. Although it will be alot more successful when they make at least a 20" version.
yes, OLED is supposed to be much more efficient...
...but this 11" TV consumes 45 Watts. That is in the ball park of many 20" LCD monitors or TVs. I would imagine that 15-17" laptop monitors consume significantly less power than their larger, brighter, higher-res desktop counterparts too.
Put this thing in a laptop, and say goodbye to battery life...and you'll still only have an 11" screen.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ethan @ Aug 5th 2008 7:27PM
I think that this is an amazing accomplishment, but Sony should have put it in a laptop because it is only 11". To be a T.V. that is extremely small. Sure this technology is alot more efficient, and alot more clear it should be a laptop screen not stand alone. Although it will be alot more successful when they make at least a 20" version.
EQC @ Aug 5th 2008 8:16PM
yes, OLED is supposed to be much more efficient...
...but this 11" TV consumes 45 Watts. That is in the ball park of many 20" LCD monitors or TVs. I would imagine that 15-17" laptop monitors consume significantly less power than their larger, brighter, higher-res desktop counterparts too.
Put this thing in a laptop, and say goodbye to battery life...and you'll still only have an 11" screen.