That's way too expensive for a small sized TV.

"Sony admits that the new TVs will replace LCD TVs overnight, but there is a huge potential in the long term. µ"

Time to switch on that Word syntax correction wizard?
:-)


Oled draw more energy than a LCD panel. Thus OLED have done improvents, they are still behind on this area. 

That's at least what i've been told. Any comments on this?

I assume it meant to say "will not replace LCD TVs overnight" =P

Still, if they are that expensive for such a small size and they do not last as long... I don't see the purpose other than for eco-enthusiasts with more money that sense.

"...more energy efficient than LCD panels as they do not need a backlight to boost brightness"

Errr, try an LCD without a backlight, the light doesn't boost the brightness, it provides it!

LCD displays are transmissive filters, they emit no light themselves, just like a stained glass window.

I always fancied putting an LCD stained glass window in a church... Imagine the faces of the congregation if Mary's eyes suddenly started glowing red, and horns appear out of her head mid-service.

Muwahahahaha!

OLED displays do use more energy than LCD panels, much more actually, but it's the backlight that kills the LCD screens. And an OLED beats LCD + backlight easily (except if they messed this one up somehow).

OLED should look much nicer than a regular LCD. In the beginning anyway. The lifetime of a monochrome OLED display is around 10000 hours or so, depending on the colour, but the main problem is that the different colours age at different speeds, so that made colour OLED displays sort of near worthless as they gave funny pictures way too soon. Solving this problem is the hard part, but if they did then great (and it would explain the steep price).

The Sony OLED draws 45W. It has a rated life of 50,000 hours while LCD has 80,000. That's not too bad. I just wish it was bigger and cheaper.