Talk:AMOLED

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Electronics Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Color This article is supported by WikiProject Color, a project that provides a central approach to color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.ColorWikipedia:WikiProject ColorTemplate:WikiProject Colorcolor ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 phones).68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Sorry, meant to say "At least 100 research papers published per day..."68.6.76.31 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

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

Am-O-Led

--88.111.114.152 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

"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

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

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

AMOLED market reached $6.9 billion in 2012 and it's expected to increase to $11.3 billion in 2013. The market is still dominate by a single supplier (Samsung Display) and a single customer (Samsung). [4] —  Ark25  (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

An image used in this article, File:Samsung Galaxy S2 (3).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Samsung Galaxy S2 (3).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

The subsection "HD Super AMOLED" under the "Marketing Terms" section says the first HD Super AMOLED device was the Galaxy Note. The Galaxy Nexus was released before the Note (late Dec 2011 compared to sometime in Feb 2012 I believe) and has a 720p resolution. Now, the section does say that HD Super AMOLED is for *greater* than 1280x720, which is exactly what the Nexus is, so maybe it doesn't qualify (though I would think the definition should be *greater than or equal to* 1280x720). However, there is a picture right next to the section of the Nexus, specifically saying it has an HD Super AMOLED screen. So I think the definition should be made more clear, and then either remove the caption saying the Nexus is HD Super AMOLED or list it as the first such device (or simply don't list the first device); I'm not sure which is the best way to handle this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.244.254 (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones states the Galaxy Note has a HD Super AMOLED *Plus* display, though clicking it and going to the details page loses all mention of Plus. Is this an error on Samsung's part? Qasdfdsaq (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is an error!--88.111.114.152 (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

"As an example, one commercial QVGA OLED display consumes 0.3 watts while showing black text on a white background, but more than 0.7 watts showing white text on a black background, while an LCD may consume only a constant 0.35 watts regardless of what is being shown on screen. Because the black pixels actually turn off, AMOLED also has contrast ratios that are significantly better than LCD."

If black pixels consume less power than bright pixels, then white text ("pixel minority on screen") on black background ("pixel majority on screen") should consume less than black text on white background!

PutzfetzenORG (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AMOLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628192052/http://www.princeton.edu/~sturmlab/pdfs/publications/CP.211.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~sturmlab/pdfs/publications/CP.211.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

i saw a commercial for a laptop with an sAMOLED display.84.212.111.156 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AMOLED. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705004637/http://data.4dsystems.com.au/downloads/micro-OLED/Docs/4D_AMOLED_Presentation.pdf to http://data.4dsystems.com.au/downloads/micro-OLED/Docs/4D_AMOLED_Presentation.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ars.samsung.com/customer/usa/jsp/faqs/faqs_view_us.jsp?SITE_ID=22&PG_ID=2&PROD_SUB_ID=557&PROD_ID=560&AT_ID=290435

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I find the long lists of equipment completely unnecessary. The article is about AMOLED technology, not phones and other gadgets. Greetings, and Happy New Year! --Janke | Talk 11:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, please see changes described under "marketing terms". Cheers, --Ahanuban (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed a large number of irrelevant/obsolete items from the marketing terms section and moved the table of examples to that section. There are still excessive examples in the table, and it might be best to make this section about significant variations on AMOLED technology rather than branded marketing/trade names.

Ahanuban (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "or" part is missing. And it's dated (slightly). jae (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

this article reads as an ad by Samsung. right now it contains the word "Samsung" 96(!!) times. also, the phrase "Super AMOLED", which is a Samsung marketing term for OGS (One Glass Solution), appears 24 times in the article. in contrast, the generic OGS term shows up only once.

the article also has a section devoted to marketing terms. do random marketing terms for types of OLED displays satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria? Lanchon (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply