<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_21_1244257</id>
	<title>Is OLED TV Technology In Jeopardy?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1266762420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"Sony recently announced it would halt sales of its 11" OLED TV in Japan, where the panel first debuted. For now, the XEL-1 will remain on sale in the US and other markets, but Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Sony-Kills-NextGen-11-Display-Manufacturers-Hedge-on-OLED-TVs/">a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology</a>. In the wake of Sony's announcement, far too many pundits have rushed to declare OLED panels dead, dying, moribund, or otherwise abandoned. However, it seems more likely at this juncture that we'll see development focus <a href="http://www.gadgetopolis.com/posts/7417">shift from large panel sizes to smaller ones</a>, particularly since the smartphone/handheld OLED market is growing briskly and larger screens are inherently more prone to defects. Sadly, this means that your chance of traipsing home with a truly cutting-edge display before 2014 or so could be pretty minimal."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " Sony recently announced it would halt sales of its 11 " OLED TV in Japan , where the panel first debuted .
For now , the XEL-1 will remain on sale in the US and other markets , but Sony 's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it 's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology .
In the wake of Sony 's announcement , far too many pundits have rushed to declare OLED panels dead , dying , moribund , or otherwise abandoned .
However , it seems more likely at this juncture that we 'll see development focus shift from large panel sizes to smaller ones , particularly since the smartphone/handheld OLED market is growing briskly and larger screens are inherently more prone to defects .
Sadly , this means that your chance of traipsing home with a truly cutting-edge display before 2014 or so could be pretty minimal .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "Sony recently announced it would halt sales of its 11" OLED TV in Japan, where the panel first debuted.
For now, the XEL-1 will remain on sale in the US and other markets, but Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology.
In the wake of Sony's announcement, far too many pundits have rushed to declare OLED panels dead, dying, moribund, or otherwise abandoned.
However, it seems more likely at this juncture that we'll see development focus shift from large panel sizes to smaller ones, particularly since the smartphone/handheld OLED market is growing briskly and larger screens are inherently more prone to defects.
Sadly, this means that your chance of traipsing home with a truly cutting-edge display before 2014 or so could be pretty minimal.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222764</id>
	<title>OLED sucks ... it only demos well</title>
	<author>gig</author>
	<datestamp>1266751980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OLED demos well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you put a brand new screen in a dark room and with the right content you can blow people away. The thin displays you can make since there is no backlight demo well. The energy consumption demos well with a mostly-black screen. But when you get it home it doesn't work in a bright room, the colors aren't great and worse, change over time. The worst part may be that it's not even more energy efficient than LED-backlit displays when playing video.</p><p>On mobiles it's even less appropriate because of the varied lighting conditions you encounter. You would see people struggling with their Nexus One or Zune in daylight if they had sold more than a handful of either device.</p><p>The nerd infatuation with this expensive buzzword has been incredible. Some were calling for an OLED iPad, that is crazy. It would cost more than the whole device and have so many drawbacks in practical use. All for a buzzword.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OLED demos well ... you put a brand new screen in a dark room and with the right content you can blow people away .
The thin displays you can make since there is no backlight demo well .
The energy consumption demos well with a mostly-black screen .
But when you get it home it does n't work in a bright room , the colors are n't great and worse , change over time .
The worst part may be that it 's not even more energy efficient than LED-backlit displays when playing video.On mobiles it 's even less appropriate because of the varied lighting conditions you encounter .
You would see people struggling with their Nexus One or Zune in daylight if they had sold more than a handful of either device.The nerd infatuation with this expensive buzzword has been incredible .
Some were calling for an OLED iPad , that is crazy .
It would cost more than the whole device and have so many drawbacks in practical use .
All for a buzzword .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OLED demos well ... you put a brand new screen in a dark room and with the right content you can blow people away.
The thin displays you can make since there is no backlight demo well.
The energy consumption demos well with a mostly-black screen.
But when you get it home it doesn't work in a bright room, the colors aren't great and worse, change over time.
The worst part may be that it's not even more energy efficient than LED-backlit displays when playing video.On mobiles it's even less appropriate because of the varied lighting conditions you encounter.
You would see people struggling with their Nexus One or Zune in daylight if they had sold more than a handful of either device.The nerd infatuation with this expensive buzzword has been incredible.
Some were calling for an OLED iPad, that is crazy.
It would cost more than the whole device and have so many drawbacks in practical use.
All for a buzzword.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218838</id>
	<title>Who wants an 11" screen?!</title>
	<author>Snaller</author>
	<datestamp>1266771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's way too small, perhaps thats why people don't want it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's way too small , perhaps thats why people do n't want it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's way too small, perhaps thats why people don't want it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219178</id>
	<title>Rumors of OLED's death are greatly exaggerated</title>
	<author>doctor\_no</author>
	<datestamp>1266774540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is being blown out of proportion.</p><p>The XEL-1 was discontinued in Japan because new TV sets sold this year will require a "V-chip" parental control, and a $2,000 11" TV doesn't justify a redesign to add that feature.  The XEL-1 is still going to be sold in the US and Europe.<br><a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=ja&amp;tl=en&amp;u=av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20100216\_349284.html" title="google.com">http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=ja&amp;tl=en&amp;u=av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20100216\_349284.html</a> [google.com]</p><p>Also, Sony is still going ahead with their 22B yen ($210M) investment in OLED<br><a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2008/05/22/Sony-Boasts-of-22-Billion-OLED-Investment/p1" title="trustedreviews.com">http://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2008/05/22/Sony-Boasts-of-22-Billion-OLED-Investment/p1</a> [trustedreviews.com]</p><p>Moreover, at the 2010 CES Sony just finished showing off a 24.5" OLED set that does 3D.<br><a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/sony-oled-3d-tv-eyes-on/" title="engadget.com">http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/sony-oled-3d-tv-eyes-on/</a> [engadget.com]</p><p>As Mark Twain said, can be applied to OLED, "rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is being blown out of proportion.The XEL-1 was discontinued in Japan because new TV sets sold this year will require a " V-chip " parental control , and a $ 2,000 11 " TV does n't justify a redesign to add that feature .
The XEL-1 is still going to be sold in the US and Europe.http : //translate.google.com/translate ? hl = en&amp;sl = ja&amp;tl = en&amp;u = av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20100216 \ _349284.html [ google.com ] Also , Sony is still going ahead with their 22B yen ( $ 210M ) investment in OLEDhttp : //www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2008/05/22/Sony-Boasts-of-22-Billion-OLED-Investment/p1 [ trustedreviews.com ] Moreover , at the 2010 CES Sony just finished showing off a 24.5 " OLED set that does 3D.http : //www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/sony-oled-3d-tv-eyes-on/ [ engadget.com ] As Mark Twain said , can be applied to OLED , " rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is being blown out of proportion.The XEL-1 was discontinued in Japan because new TV sets sold this year will require a "V-chip" parental control, and a $2,000 11" TV doesn't justify a redesign to add that feature.
The XEL-1 is still going to be sold in the US and Europe.http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=ja&amp;tl=en&amp;u=av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20100216\_349284.html [google.com]Also, Sony is still going ahead with their 22B yen ($210M) investment in OLEDhttp://www.trustedreviews.com/tvs/news/2008/05/22/Sony-Boasts-of-22-Billion-OLED-Investment/p1 [trustedreviews.com]Moreover, at the 2010 CES Sony just finished showing off a 24.5" OLED set that does 3D.http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/07/sony-oled-3d-tv-eyes-on/ [engadget.com]As Mark Twain said, can be applied to OLED, "rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218492</id>
	<title>Re:size, not technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266768240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget the main problem, that the 11" TV cost like $2000. It was the first commercially available OLED TV, a limited production tech demo basically. As you say, 11" is <i>really</i> small, that's about the size of my laptops's screen and I can't imagine many scenarios where watching it from further than say a meter away is a good idea.</p><p>OLED seems to be making good progress for in smaller devices, it was only recently that only a few Kodak cameras and and tiny MP3 players had OLED screens, but now they're many of the new phones as well. It seems that we're moving up in size, so hopefully we'll see further increases in screen dimensions. The article even mentions the upcoming 15" LG TV, and although at around two grand it's still too expensive, at least we're getting there size wise. In any case, screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors, which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the main problem , that the 11 " TV cost like $ 2000 .
It was the first commercially available OLED TV , a limited production tech demo basically .
As you say , 11 " is really small , that 's about the size of my laptops 's screen and I ca n't imagine many scenarios where watching it from further than say a meter away is a good idea.OLED seems to be making good progress for in smaller devices , it was only recently that only a few Kodak cameras and and tiny MP3 players had OLED screens , but now they 're many of the new phones as well .
It seems that we 're moving up in size , so hopefully we 'll see further increases in screen dimensions .
The article even mentions the upcoming 15 " LG TV , and although at around two grand it 's still too expensive , at least we 're getting there size wise .
In any case , screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors , which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the main problem, that the 11" TV cost like $2000.
It was the first commercially available OLED TV, a limited production tech demo basically.
As you say, 11" is really small, that's about the size of my laptops's screen and I can't imagine many scenarios where watching it from further than say a meter away is a good idea.OLED seems to be making good progress for in smaller devices, it was only recently that only a few Kodak cameras and and tiny MP3 players had OLED screens, but now they're many of the new phones as well.
It seems that we're moving up in size, so hopefully we'll see further increases in screen dimensions.
The article even mentions the upcoming 15" LG TV, and although at around two grand it's still too expensive, at least we're getting there size wise.
In any case, screw TVs - I want OLED computer monitors, which are luckily very usable even once you get to around 20".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219132</id>
	<title>Pundits: The cancer of the media.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Someone does something.<br>2. The pundits exaggerate it to a end-of-the-world scenario.<br>3. OMGWTFBBQ<br>4.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>5. PROFIT (for the media)</p><p>News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Someone does something.2 .
The pundits exaggerate it to a end-of-the-world scenario.3 .
OMGWTFBBQ4. ...5 .
PROFIT ( for the media ) News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Someone does something.2.
The pundits exaggerate it to a end-of-the-world scenario.3.
OMGWTFBBQ4. ...5.
PROFIT (for the media)News at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218370</id>
	<title>And Plasma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blah Blah, Heard the same for plasma a few year ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blah Blah , Heard the same for plasma a few year ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blah Blah, Heard the same for plasma a few year ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220326</id>
	<title>Reason Sony's OLED TV failed: Bad form factor</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1266780360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the Sony OLED TV didn't sell was because it was a ridiculous design. Look at the picture:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/techno-techno-techno/css/sony-xel-1-oled.jpg" title="mirror.co.uk">http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/techno-techno-techno/css/sony-xel-1-oled.jpg</a> [mirror.co.uk]</p><p>What is the point of having an ultra-thin display when the base required to hold it makes the device have the same footprint as a CRT TV? This might have been a good seller if it had been something you could hang on your wall, but even then, most people have enough space in their homes that they don't really *need* an ultra-thin display (and would not pay a premium for it)</p><p>I there is a market for ultra-thin displays, but it is for tablet devices and laptops, not TVs. I believe Sony realized this and is simply moving towards that market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Sony OLED TV did n't sell was because it was a ridiculous design .
Look at the picture :     http : //blogs.mirror.co.uk/techno-techno-techno/css/sony-xel-1-oled.jpg [ mirror.co.uk ] What is the point of having an ultra-thin display when the base required to hold it makes the device have the same footprint as a CRT TV ?
This might have been a good seller if it had been something you could hang on your wall , but even then , most people have enough space in their homes that they do n't really * need * an ultra-thin display ( and would not pay a premium for it ) I there is a market for ultra-thin displays , but it is for tablet devices and laptops , not TVs .
I believe Sony realized this and is simply moving towards that market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Sony OLED TV didn't sell was because it was a ridiculous design.
Look at the picture:
    http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/techno-techno-techno/css/sony-xel-1-oled.jpg [mirror.co.uk]What is the point of having an ultra-thin display when the base required to hold it makes the device have the same footprint as a CRT TV?
This might have been a good seller if it had been something you could hang on your wall, but even then, most people have enough space in their homes that they don't really *need* an ultra-thin display (and would not pay a premium for it)I there is a market for ultra-thin displays, but it is for tablet devices and laptops, not TVs.
I believe Sony realized this and is simply moving towards that market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218730</id>
	<title>Good ridance</title>
	<author>frovingslosh</author>
	<datestamp>1266770760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got pretty excited about OLED TV when I first heard of it. Almost bought into it. Then I learned how short of a life expectancy OLEDs have, enough that one can expect failing pixels in just a few thousand hours of operation, and rapidly declining after that.</p><p>
When I put the money asked for into a large screen TV, I want it to last, not be expected to fail in a few thousand hours of operation. This is a technology currently suited to phones and other devices that have a known, limited, expected life of service. It is not well suited for home appliances that are costly and one might hope will last for well over a decade, maybe longer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got pretty excited about OLED TV when I first heard of it .
Almost bought into it .
Then I learned how short of a life expectancy OLEDs have , enough that one can expect failing pixels in just a few thousand hours of operation , and rapidly declining after that .
When I put the money asked for into a large screen TV , I want it to last , not be expected to fail in a few thousand hours of operation .
This is a technology currently suited to phones and other devices that have a known , limited , expected life of service .
It is not well suited for home appliances that are costly and one might hope will last for well over a decade , maybe longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got pretty excited about OLED TV when I first heard of it.
Almost bought into it.
Then I learned how short of a life expectancy OLEDs have, enough that one can expect failing pixels in just a few thousand hours of operation, and rapidly declining after that.
When I put the money asked for into a large screen TV, I want it to last, not be expected to fail in a few thousand hours of operation.
This is a technology currently suited to phones and other devices that have a known, limited, expected life of service.
It is not well suited for home appliances that are costly and one might hope will last for well over a decade, maybe longer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218404</id>
	<title>Re:If so what instead?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266767280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dream, and they were promised what, 7 years ago now?</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't worry, your flying car will have one on the instrument panel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a thin display without native rez , and CRT colour quality is still my dream , and they were promised what , 7 years ago now ? Do n't worry , your flying car will have one on the instrument panel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dream, and they were promised what, 7 years ago now?Don't worry, your flying car will have one on the instrument panel.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218544</id>
	<title>Who said OLED is dying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266768840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, who said this?  I'm genuinely curious.  Are there any reliable sources to back this up, or is it just another sensationalist piece?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , who said this ?
I 'm genuinely curious .
Are there any reliable sources to back this up , or is it just another sensationalist piece ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, who said this?
I'm genuinely curious.
Are there any reliable sources to back this up, or is it just another sensationalist piece?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218746</id>
	<title>Re:Jeopardy</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1266771000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll take "Doomed visual display technologies" for $500, Alex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take " Doomed visual display technologies " for $ 500 , Alex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take "Doomed visual display technologies" for $500, Alex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>ShooterNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1266768660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me get this straight : I hear that OLED is the "perfect" display tech.</p><p>+  Low energy consumption since all the light from the phosphers shines through<br>+  ultra high refresh rates possible<br>+  flicker free<br>+ full 180 degree viewing angle<br>+  perfect black levels with absolutely no light emmitting from pixels that are off<br>+  no ghosting at all<br>+ cheaper to manufacture than LCDs<br>+ flexible<br>+ ultra thin</p><p>Basically, a perfect display with no drawbacks other than the fact it isn't 3d like the holodeck.</p><p>Oh, and the blue pigments fade fast, so the display dims over time and the color balance gets messed up.</p><p>Oh, and it isn't being made in large enough quantities to be affordable.</p><p>So what's the deal?  Why is Sony throwing in the towel now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me get this straight : I hear that OLED is the " perfect " display tech. + Low energy consumption since all the light from the phosphers shines through + ultra high refresh rates possible + flicker free + full 180 degree viewing angle + perfect black levels with absolutely no light emmitting from pixels that are off + no ghosting at all + cheaper to manufacture than LCDs + flexible + ultra thinBasically , a perfect display with no drawbacks other than the fact it is n't 3d like the holodeck.Oh , and the blue pigments fade fast , so the display dims over time and the color balance gets messed up.Oh , and it is n't being made in large enough quantities to be affordable.So what 's the deal ?
Why is Sony throwing in the towel now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me get this straight : I hear that OLED is the "perfect" display tech.+  Low energy consumption since all the light from the phosphers shines through+  ultra high refresh rates possible+  flicker free+ full 180 degree viewing angle+  perfect black levels with absolutely no light emmitting from pixels that are off+  no ghosting at all+ cheaper to manufacture than LCDs+ flexible+ ultra thinBasically, a perfect display with no drawbacks other than the fact it isn't 3d like the holodeck.Oh, and the blue pigments fade fast, so the display dims over time and the color balance gets messed up.Oh, and it isn't being made in large enough quantities to be affordable.So what's the deal?
Why is Sony throwing in the towel now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218296</id>
	<title>It's a Sony product huh?</title>
	<author>Rod Beauvex</author>
	<datestamp>1266766380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wants to bet it is overpriced, has lots of restrictions, and Sony wants too much to liscense the technology.<br>
<br>
Alas Sony, you have great ideas. Why do you always sabotage yourself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to bet it is overpriced , has lots of restrictions , and Sony wants too much to liscense the technology .
Alas Sony , you have great ideas .
Why do you always sabotage yourself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to bet it is overpriced, has lots of restrictions, and Sony wants too much to liscense the technology.
Alas Sony, you have great ideas.
Why do you always sabotage yourself?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222154</id>
	<title>A Little Perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266748800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you guys remember when LCD flat panel TVs first came out, they were $10,000.  I first saw one in a Popular Mechanics article about 12 years ago.  Then like anything else, it gets mass produced, the technology evolves, and prices come down.</p><p>If anyone has seen the Sony 11" OLED in person, you know how gorgeous it is.  I dream of owning a full size version for the prices we pay for LCD tech today, but like everything else, it just takes time.</p><p>Not to mention the exciting possibilities of FOLED and TOLED (flexibility, transparency)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you guys remember when LCD flat panel TVs first came out , they were $ 10,000 .
I first saw one in a Popular Mechanics article about 12 years ago .
Then like anything else , it gets mass produced , the technology evolves , and prices come down.If anyone has seen the Sony 11 " OLED in person , you know how gorgeous it is .
I dream of owning a full size version for the prices we pay for LCD tech today , but like everything else , it just takes time.Not to mention the exciting possibilities of FOLED and TOLED ( flexibility , transparency ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you guys remember when LCD flat panel TVs first came out, they were $10,000.
I first saw one in a Popular Mechanics article about 12 years ago.
Then like anything else, it gets mass produced, the technology evolves, and prices come down.If anyone has seen the Sony 11" OLED in person, you know how gorgeous it is.
I dream of owning a full size version for the prices we pay for LCD tech today, but like everything else, it just takes time.Not to mention the exciting possibilities of FOLED and TOLED (flexibility, transparency)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31224752</id>
	<title>What happened to SED</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1266765420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were (or are) a number of technologies that basically work like a CRT but with each pixel having an individual red/green/blue electron gun.<br>Whatever happened to that?</p><p>Why has no-one proceeded with that as a viable technology (I would guess that it has most of the advantages of CRT with very few of the disadvantages like the size)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were ( or are ) a number of technologies that basically work like a CRT but with each pixel having an individual red/green/blue electron gun.Whatever happened to that ? Why has no-one proceeded with that as a viable technology ( I would guess that it has most of the advantages of CRT with very few of the disadvantages like the size )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were (or are) a number of technologies that basically work like a CRT but with each pixel having an individual red/green/blue electron gun.Whatever happened to that?Why has no-one proceeded with that as a viable technology (I would guess that it has most of the advantages of CRT with very few of the disadvantages like the size)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31224508</id>
	<title>Waiting for SED</title>
	<author>Tempsi</author>
	<datestamp>1266763440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still waiting for SED. It was supposed to arrive for consumers in 2006 or so...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still waiting for SED .
It was supposed to arrive for consumers in 2006 or so.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still waiting for SED.
It was supposed to arrive for consumers in 2006 or so...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220194</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>jtcampbell</author>
	<datestamp>1266779820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Active matrix OLED displays are actually really hard to manufacture compared to TFT LCDs.</p><p>A major issue comes from the fact that the TFT backplane has to supply an appreciable current to each pixel, rather than just a voltage as in LCDs. This means you can't get away with using amorphous silicon, you have to make the backplane out of Polycrystalline silicon which makes the whole production process a lot more complicated and also limits the size of panel that you can make.</p><p>Also, you generally you want to run the OLED elements in constant current mode, so you end up needing a current source circuit in each pixel. This increases the number of transistors you need per pixel from 1 or 2 in TFT to between 2 and 6 with OLED. And if any of them has a fault then you've got a dead pixel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Active matrix OLED displays are actually really hard to manufacture compared to TFT LCDs.A major issue comes from the fact that the TFT backplane has to supply an appreciable current to each pixel , rather than just a voltage as in LCDs .
This means you ca n't get away with using amorphous silicon , you have to make the backplane out of Polycrystalline silicon which makes the whole production process a lot more complicated and also limits the size of panel that you can make.Also , you generally you want to run the OLED elements in constant current mode , so you end up needing a current source circuit in each pixel .
This increases the number of transistors you need per pixel from 1 or 2 in TFT to between 2 and 6 with OLED .
And if any of them has a fault then you 've got a dead pixel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Active matrix OLED displays are actually really hard to manufacture compared to TFT LCDs.A major issue comes from the fact that the TFT backplane has to supply an appreciable current to each pixel, rather than just a voltage as in LCDs.
This means you can't get away with using amorphous silicon, you have to make the backplane out of Polycrystalline silicon which makes the whole production process a lot more complicated and also limits the size of panel that you can make.Also, you generally you want to run the OLED elements in constant current mode, so you end up needing a current source circuit in each pixel.
This increases the number of transistors you need per pixel from 1 or 2 in TFT to between 2 and 6 with OLED.
And if any of them has a fault then you've got a dead pixel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222830</id>
	<title>Re:It's a Sony product huh?</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1266752340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For fucks sake they invested and first developed and sold the technology. Credit where credit is due.<br>Just because you have a personal grudge against the company doesn't mean you have to bash everything they do. New technology is expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For fucks sake they invested and first developed and sold the technology .
Credit where credit is due.Just because you have a personal grudge against the company does n't mean you have to bash everything they do .
New technology is expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For fucks sake they invested and first developed and sold the technology.
Credit where credit is due.Just because you have a personal grudge against the company doesn't mean you have to bash everything they do.
New technology is expensive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223474</id>
	<title>Re:Jeopardy</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1266756360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, I only came here to post this:

"What is, No? Does not Jeopardy still use CRT monitors?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I only came here to post this : " What is , No ?
Does not Jeopardy still use CRT monitors ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I only came here to post this:

"What is, No?
Does not Jeopardy still use CRT monitors?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31227554</id>
	<title>Re:size, not technology</title>
	<author>RMH101</author>
	<datestamp>1266839220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, I can't think of any other use for an OLED display 11 inches across.  It's already being used in smaller sizes in phones - what if someone was to come up with a form factor that was slightly larger LIKE A FREAKING TABLET or something</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , I ca n't think of any other use for an OLED display 11 inches across .
It 's already being used in smaller sizes in phones - what if someone was to come up with a form factor that was slightly larger LIKE A FREAKING TABLET or something</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, I can't think of any other use for an OLED display 11 inches across.
It's already being used in smaller sizes in phones - what if someone was to come up with a form factor that was slightly larger LIKE A FREAKING TABLET or something</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218744</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1266770940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have the potential to be cheaper to manufacture than LCD TVs (because there are less pieces working together), but they aren't yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have the potential to be cheaper to manufacture than LCD TVs ( because there are less pieces working together ) , but they are n't yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have the potential to be cheaper to manufacture than LCD TVs (because there are less pieces working together), but they aren't yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219362</id>
	<title>Implication</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266775740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The implication seems to be that Sony is the only one working on this technology for TVs and monitors. Isn't Samsung working on this tech as well, and debuting some stuff this year? I seem to remember seeing other companies doing R&amp;D on OLED on larger displays as well (I wish I had the sources handy). It seems silly to declare a technology dead when a single product is being discontinued.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The implication seems to be that Sony is the only one working on this technology for TVs and monitors .
Is n't Samsung working on this tech as well , and debuting some stuff this year ?
I seem to remember seeing other companies doing R&amp;D on OLED on larger displays as well ( I wish I had the sources handy ) .
It seems silly to declare a technology dead when a single product is being discontinued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The implication seems to be that Sony is the only one working on this technology for TVs and monitors.
Isn't Samsung working on this tech as well, and debuting some stuff this year?
I seem to remember seeing other companies doing R&amp;D on OLED on larger displays as well (I wish I had the sources handy).
It seems silly to declare a technology dead when a single product is being discontinued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223624</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>grahamlord86</author>
	<datestamp>1266757440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Low power consumption isn't all that... When displaying black, they do use a lot less power than LCDs, but when displaying bright, or white colours, they can be using substantially more.<br>On practical displays like TVs and computers screens, this is a problem, since you've got a lot of bright colour.<br>On a PC, you've got mostly white for documents and websites- so all of a sudden, you can actually end up using a lot more power.</p><p>The other downer, is that OLEDs are rubbish under sunlight, even by LCD standards.</p><p>It might be that with proper RnD, these faults can be sorted out, the power consumption can be lowered to what they say it is, reflective brightness improved, etc- but it makes more sense to be on the LCD bandwagon with everyone else right now, than throw money at a technology that's probably going to be obsolete by the time it's matured...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Low power consumption is n't all that... When displaying black , they do use a lot less power than LCDs , but when displaying bright , or white colours , they can be using substantially more.On practical displays like TVs and computers screens , this is a problem , since you 've got a lot of bright colour.On a PC , you 've got mostly white for documents and websites- so all of a sudden , you can actually end up using a lot more power.The other downer , is that OLEDs are rubbish under sunlight , even by LCD standards.It might be that with proper RnD , these faults can be sorted out , the power consumption can be lowered to what they say it is , reflective brightness improved , etc- but it makes more sense to be on the LCD bandwagon with everyone else right now , than throw money at a technology that 's probably going to be obsolete by the time it 's matured.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Low power consumption isn't all that... When displaying black, they do use a lot less power than LCDs, but when displaying bright, or white colours, they can be using substantially more.On practical displays like TVs and computers screens, this is a problem, since you've got a lot of bright colour.On a PC, you've got mostly white for documents and websites- so all of a sudden, you can actually end up using a lot more power.The other downer, is that OLEDs are rubbish under sunlight, even by LCD standards.It might be that with proper RnD, these faults can be sorted out, the power consumption can be lowered to what they say it is, reflective brightness improved, etc- but it makes more sense to be on the LCD bandwagon with everyone else right now, than throw money at a technology that's probably going to be obsolete by the time it's matured...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378</id>
	<title>size, not technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266767040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology</i>

</p><p>No, it was a judgment in how stupid they were to come out with an ultra-premium-price 11" TV.

</p><p>I understand that the Japanese are space-conscious, but 11" is a ridiculous size, especially in the day of 1080i broadcasts.

</p><p>Sony came out with the 11" because that was the largest they could reasonably manufacture, but they forgot that it doesn't matter how cool the TV is if you can't see the damn thing.   This one was so small, it'd practically have to be on your nightstand to watch it in bed.  Maybe on your desk?  Who wants to have an 11" TV on their desk when they have a 20" LCD display, or a 15" laptop display?

</p><p>If they come out with an OLED set at a price that AV enthusiasts can afford at a size at least some people can use, they'll sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony 's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it 's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology No , it was a judgment in how stupid they were to come out with an ultra-premium-price 11 " TV .
I understand that the Japanese are space-conscious , but 11 " is a ridiculous size , especially in the day of 1080i broadcasts .
Sony came out with the 11 " because that was the largest they could reasonably manufacture , but they forgot that it does n't matter how cool the TV is if you ca n't see the damn thing .
This one was so small , it 'd practically have to be on your nightstand to watch it in bed .
Maybe on your desk ?
Who wants to have an 11 " TV on their desk when they have a 20 " LCD display , or a 15 " laptop display ?
If they come out with an OLED set at a price that AV enthusiasts can afford at a size at least some people can use , they 'll sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology

No, it was a judgment in how stupid they were to come out with an ultra-premium-price 11" TV.
I understand that the Japanese are space-conscious, but 11" is a ridiculous size, especially in the day of 1080i broadcasts.
Sony came out with the 11" because that was the largest they could reasonably manufacture, but they forgot that it doesn't matter how cool the TV is if you can't see the damn thing.
This one was so small, it'd practically have to be on your nightstand to watch it in bed.
Maybe on your desk?
Who wants to have an 11" TV on their desk when they have a 20" LCD display, or a 15" laptop display?
If they come out with an OLED set at a price that AV enthusiasts can afford at a size at least some people can use, they'll sell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222778</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Creepy Crawler</author>
	<datestamp>1266752160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it in Jeopardy?</p><p>I dunno. Lets ask Alex Trebeck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it in Jeopardy ? I dunno .
Lets ask Alex Trebeck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it in Jeopardy?I dunno.
Lets ask Alex Trebeck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221022</id>
	<title>Re:There will be no more variable resolution displ</title>
	<author>zerocool^</author>
	<datestamp>1266784200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing that bugs the shit out of me right now is stuff like Clear Type and whatever the default font Microsoft uses for Word 2007 now.  It seriously looks like it would work better on a CRT moniter - on LCD's it looks like a blurry mess!  It's SUPER anti-aliased, when LCD's provide you nothing if not crisp, perfectly aligned geometry - which looks TERRIBAD with this fuzzy font.</p><p>Anymore, the first thing I do when I open a new word doc for editing is switch the font to Arial or something other than the Calibri default.</p><p>If anyone knows how to fix that, be my guest and enlighten me, but I've tried all the built in calibration tools - you go through them and they look great at the end, but then back to word and just ugh, a fuzzy mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that bugs the shit out of me right now is stuff like Clear Type and whatever the default font Microsoft uses for Word 2007 now .
It seriously looks like it would work better on a CRT moniter - on LCD 's it looks like a blurry mess !
It 's SUPER anti-aliased , when LCD 's provide you nothing if not crisp , perfectly aligned geometry - which looks TERRIBAD with this fuzzy font.Anymore , the first thing I do when I open a new word doc for editing is switch the font to Arial or something other than the Calibri default.If anyone knows how to fix that , be my guest and enlighten me , but I 've tried all the built in calibration tools - you go through them and they look great at the end , but then back to word and just ugh , a fuzzy mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that bugs the shit out of me right now is stuff like Clear Type and whatever the default font Microsoft uses for Word 2007 now.
It seriously looks like it would work better on a CRT moniter - on LCD's it looks like a blurry mess!
It's SUPER anti-aliased, when LCD's provide you nothing if not crisp, perfectly aligned geometry - which looks TERRIBAD with this fuzzy font.Anymore, the first thing I do when I open a new word doc for editing is switch the font to Arial or something other than the Calibri default.If anyone knows how to fix that, be my guest and enlighten me, but I've tried all the built in calibration tools - you go through them and they look great at the end, but then back to word and just ugh, a fuzzy mess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218882</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe ...</title>
	<author>Penguinisto</author>
	<datestamp>1266772140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, perfectly.</p><p>OTOH, I still use a CRT on my desktop that's almost as big as the CRT television in my living room. Both are well over 10 years old, and still ticking along very nicely, with perfect brightness and sharpness (I originally bought the desktop monitor because you couldn't color-calibrate LCD's back in the day).</p><p>I might get around to buying a plasma or LCD TV here in the next few months, and likely a new iMac before the end of the year, but I figure there's not much need to toss out perfectly working gear that has plenty of viewable real-estate (plus the ROI on the things have been fantastic - the monitor has out-lasted about ten different computers, and the KVM it's latched on to has out-lasted about four of them).</p><p>Question is, will the new televisions/monitors last as long as a typical CRT? I've seen working television sets that have been around for 20-30 years, and yet they still chug along as if they were new - in spite of being generally neglected and probably packed full of dust bunnies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , perfectly.OTOH , I still use a CRT on my desktop that 's almost as big as the CRT television in my living room .
Both are well over 10 years old , and still ticking along very nicely , with perfect brightness and sharpness ( I originally bought the desktop monitor because you could n't color-calibrate LCD 's back in the day ) .I might get around to buying a plasma or LCD TV here in the next few months , and likely a new iMac before the end of the year , but I figure there 's not much need to toss out perfectly working gear that has plenty of viewable real-estate ( plus the ROI on the things have been fantastic - the monitor has out-lasted about ten different computers , and the KVM it 's latched on to has out-lasted about four of them ) .Question is , will the new televisions/monitors last as long as a typical CRT ?
I 've seen working television sets that have been around for 20-30 years , and yet they still chug along as if they were new - in spite of being generally neglected and probably packed full of dust bunnies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, perfectly.OTOH, I still use a CRT on my desktop that's almost as big as the CRT television in my living room.
Both are well over 10 years old, and still ticking along very nicely, with perfect brightness and sharpness (I originally bought the desktop monitor because you couldn't color-calibrate LCD's back in the day).I might get around to buying a plasma or LCD TV here in the next few months, and likely a new iMac before the end of the year, but I figure there's not much need to toss out perfectly working gear that has plenty of viewable real-estate (plus the ROI on the things have been fantastic - the monitor has out-lasted about ten different computers, and the KVM it's latched on to has out-lasted about four of them).Question is, will the new televisions/monitors last as long as a typical CRT?
I've seen working television sets that have been around for 20-30 years, and yet they still chug along as if they were new - in spite of being generally neglected and probably packed full of dust bunnies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31226726</id>
	<title>Re:Who said OLED is dying?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266870060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is official; HotHardware now confirms: OLED is dying</p><p>One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered OLED industry when HotHardware confirmed that average OLED screen sizes have dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of the TV screens promised by 2010. Coming close on the heels of a recent manufacturer survey which plainly states that OLED has lost more industry support, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. OLED research is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in this year's Consumer Electronics Show demonstrations.</p><p>You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict OLED's future. The hand writing is on the wall: OLED faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for OLED because OLED is dying. Things are looking very bad for OLED. As many of us are already aware, OLED sizes have failed to increase while other technologies are thriving. Red ink flows like a river of blood.</p><p>Sony's OLED development is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core researchers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time OLED researchers Akio Morita and Tetsujiro Kondoh only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: OLED is dying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is official ; HotHardware now confirms : OLED is dyingOne more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered OLED industry when HotHardware confirmed that average OLED screen sizes have dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of the TV screens promised by 2010 .
Coming close on the heels of a recent manufacturer survey which plainly states that OLED has lost more industry support , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
OLED research is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in this year 's Consumer Electronics Show demonstrations.You do n't need to be a Kreskin to predict OLED 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : OLED faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for OLED because OLED is dying .
Things are looking very bad for OLED .
As many of us are already aware , OLED sizes have failed to increase while other technologies are thriving .
Red ink flows like a river of blood.Sony 's OLED development is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core researchers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time OLED researchers Akio Morita and Tetsujiro Kondoh only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : OLED is dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is official; HotHardware now confirms: OLED is dyingOne more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered OLED industry when HotHardware confirmed that average OLED screen sizes have dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of the TV screens promised by 2010.
Coming close on the heels of a recent manufacturer survey which plainly states that OLED has lost more industry support, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
OLED research is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in this year's Consumer Electronics Show demonstrations.You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict OLED's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: OLED faces a bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for OLED because OLED is dying.
Things are looking very bad for OLED.
As many of us are already aware, OLED sizes have failed to increase while other technologies are thriving.
Red ink flows like a river of blood.Sony's OLED development is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93\% of its core researchers.
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time OLED researchers Akio Morita and Tetsujiro Kondoh only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be any doubt: OLED is dying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218432</id>
	<title>Hmmm</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1266767580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The XEL-1 is a sub-HD, 11 inch television that cost thousands of dollars. It looks pretty ugly too being the unholy marriage of a super thin display with a hulking base unit containing the technical gubbins.
<p>
I'm not surprised if its been withdrawn. It's yesterday's news as far as early adopters might be concerned and they would be the people most inclined to buy it. Besides, the state of the art has moved on and we already know LG are delivering larger, HD capable sets this year and its likely other manufacturers would have similar plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The XEL-1 is a sub-HD , 11 inch television that cost thousands of dollars .
It looks pretty ugly too being the unholy marriage of a super thin display with a hulking base unit containing the technical gubbins .
I 'm not surprised if its been withdrawn .
It 's yesterday 's news as far as early adopters might be concerned and they would be the people most inclined to buy it .
Besides , the state of the art has moved on and we already know LG are delivering larger , HD capable sets this year and its likely other manufacturers would have similar plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The XEL-1 is a sub-HD, 11 inch television that cost thousands of dollars.
It looks pretty ugly too being the unholy marriage of a super thin display with a hulking base unit containing the technical gubbins.
I'm not surprised if its been withdrawn.
It's yesterday's news as far as early adopters might be concerned and they would be the people most inclined to buy it.
Besides, the state of the art has moved on and we already know LG are delivering larger, HD capable sets this year and its likely other manufacturers would have similar plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223742</id>
	<title>Japanese Law is responsible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266758220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The TV is being withdrawn in Japan only because all new TVs sold in Japan must have some kind of parental control built in (starting shortly) and it seems that Sony doesn't want to redesign this model to meet the new law's requirements.</p><p>No doubt they'll add that to the next model, and continue to push high end oleds - that's where the money is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The TV is being withdrawn in Japan only because all new TVs sold in Japan must have some kind of parental control built in ( starting shortly ) and it seems that Sony does n't want to redesign this model to meet the new law 's requirements.No doubt they 'll add that to the next model , and continue to push high end oleds - that 's where the money is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The TV is being withdrawn in Japan only because all new TVs sold in Japan must have some kind of parental control built in (starting shortly) and it seems that Sony doesn't want to redesign this model to meet the new law's requirements.No doubt they'll add that to the next model, and continue to push high end oleds - that's where the money is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31225868</id>
	<title>Any surprise?</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1266773880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The XEL-1 stopped being sold in Canada a LONG time ago. About 6 months ago, I saw a blow out on the display model (I seriously considered it - $1000 made it tempting), and the Sony Store online only had it as "In store only" - you couldn't buy it online.</p><p>The big problem was its resolution, at quarter full-HD (960x540), all you could do was watch SD video scaled up a little bit. Or high-def video scaled down to just-a-little-better-than-SDTV.</p><p>The other problem was the videos they displayed on it had horrible flickering. It was worse than a 60Hz CRT monitor.</p><p>From what I've heard, the ones who bought it were CEO types who wanted a little nifty TV display. Though these days you can LCD picture frames with higher resolution, and either USB monitor support, or HDMI inputs so you could use it as a TV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The XEL-1 stopped being sold in Canada a LONG time ago .
About 6 months ago , I saw a blow out on the display model ( I seriously considered it - $ 1000 made it tempting ) , and the Sony Store online only had it as " In store only " - you could n't buy it online.The big problem was its resolution , at quarter full-HD ( 960x540 ) , all you could do was watch SD video scaled up a little bit .
Or high-def video scaled down to just-a-little-better-than-SDTV.The other problem was the videos they displayed on it had horrible flickering .
It was worse than a 60Hz CRT monitor.From what I 've heard , the ones who bought it were CEO types who wanted a little nifty TV display .
Though these days you can LCD picture frames with higher resolution , and either USB monitor support , or HDMI inputs so you could use it as a TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The XEL-1 stopped being sold in Canada a LONG time ago.
About 6 months ago, I saw a blow out on the display model (I seriously considered it - $1000 made it tempting), and the Sony Store online only had it as "In store only" - you couldn't buy it online.The big problem was its resolution, at quarter full-HD (960x540), all you could do was watch SD video scaled up a little bit.
Or high-def video scaled down to just-a-little-better-than-SDTV.The other problem was the videos they displayed on it had horrible flickering.
It was worse than a 60Hz CRT monitor.From what I've heard, the ones who bought it were CEO types who wanted a little nifty TV display.
Though these days you can LCD picture frames with higher resolution, and either USB monitor support, or HDMI inputs so you could use it as a TV.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218662</id>
	<title>Legal reasons is what I heard</title>
	<author>boticho</author>
	<datestamp>1266770100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I recall correctly, it looks like any new TVs in Japan need to have parental controls since not many weeks ago. Sony does not want to recall the XELs for any firmware upgrade (if it is feasible), so it is just saying that is good enough. Time to rest. You know, two years is already a long time for TV manufacturers.
This is the story by engadget: <a href="http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/16/sony-kills-xel-1-oled-tv-production-in-japan-cites-sluggish-de/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/16/sony-kills-xel-1-oled-tv-production-in-japan-cites-sluggish-de/</a> [engadget.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I recall correctly , it looks like any new TVs in Japan need to have parental controls since not many weeks ago .
Sony does not want to recall the XELs for any firmware upgrade ( if it is feasible ) , so it is just saying that is good enough .
Time to rest .
You know , two years is already a long time for TV manufacturers .
This is the story by engadget : http : //www.engadget.com/2010/02/16/sony-kills-xel-1-oled-tv-production-in-japan-cites-sluggish-de/ [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I recall correctly, it looks like any new TVs in Japan need to have parental controls since not many weeks ago.
Sony does not want to recall the XELs for any firmware upgrade (if it is feasible), so it is just saying that is good enough.
Time to rest.
You know, two years is already a long time for TV manufacturers.
This is the story by engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/16/sony-kills-xel-1-oled-tv-production-in-japan-cites-sluggish-de/ [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31224558</id>
	<title>Re:There will be no more variable resolution displ</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1266763920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi.</p><p>While you were out, NeXT called from 20 years ago.  They say their Display Postscript might be just the trick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi.While you were out , NeXT called from 20 years ago .
They say their Display Postscript might be just the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi.While you were out, NeXT called from 20 years ago.
They say their Display Postscript might be just the trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562</id>
	<title>There will be no more variable resolution displays</title>
	<author>guidryp</author>
	<datestamp>1266769020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but a thin display <b>without native rez</b>, and CRT colour quality is still my dream</p></div><p>The variable resolution of CRT was a technological artifact, resulting from the NEED to scan across the display. We no longer have that need.</p><p>Going forward all consumer displays(in foreseeable future) will have a set, native resolution.</p><p>You get a sharper display, and you get perfect geometry. I will take that over blurry/variable geometry CRT any day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but a thin display without native rez , and CRT colour quality is still my dreamThe variable resolution of CRT was a technological artifact , resulting from the NEED to scan across the display .
We no longer have that need.Going forward all consumer displays ( in foreseeable future ) will have a set , native resolution.You get a sharper display , and you get perfect geometry .
I will take that over blurry/variable geometry CRT any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dreamThe variable resolution of CRT was a technological artifact, resulting from the NEED to scan across the display.
We no longer have that need.Going forward all consumer displays(in foreseeable future) will have a set, native resolution.You get a sharper display, and you get perfect geometry.
I will take that over blurry/variable geometry CRT any day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220240</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>pitchpipe</author>
	<datestamp>1266780000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is Sony throwing in the towel now?</p></div><p>They're probably not.  This is just speculation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development <b>has been perceived in some corners</b> as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology.</p></div><p>We have the</p><ul> <li>Critique of the Critics</li><li>Punditry of the Pundits</li><li>Muck of the Muckrakers</li><li>Quibbles of the Quibblers</li></ul><p>And now introducing: <b>Perception from some corners!</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Sony throwing in the towel now ? They 're probably not .
This is just speculation.Sony 's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it 's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology.We have the Critique of the CriticsPunditry of the PunditsMuck of the MuckrakersQuibbles of the QuibblersAnd now introducing : Perception from some corners !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Sony throwing in the towel now?They're probably not.
This is just speculation.Sony's decision to kill the unit in its home market and reduce the rate at which it's investing in future OLED TV development has been perceived in some corners as a judgment on the long-term feasibility of OLED technology.We have the Critique of the CriticsPunditry of the PunditsMuck of the MuckrakersQuibbles of the QuibblersAnd now introducing: Perception from some corners!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218992</id>
	<title>Is Home Video in Jeopardy?</title>
	<author>gafisher</author>
	<datestamp>1266773100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sony stopped development on the Betamax and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... home video took off like a rocket.  OLED or something better will be developed with or without Sony.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony stopped development on the Betamax and ... home video took off like a rocket .
OLED or something better will be developed with or without Sony .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony stopped development on the Betamax and ... home video took off like a rocket.
OLED or something better will be developed with or without Sony.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223274</id>
	<title>Big deal.</title>
	<author>Snufu</author>
	<datestamp>1266755100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My 13" CRT has had a curved screen for years. And the burn-in surpasses OLED too. Sure its heavy and bulky, but at least it keeps my room warm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My 13 " CRT has had a curved screen for years .
And the burn-in surpasses OLED too .
Sure its heavy and bulky , but at least it keeps my room warm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My 13" CRT has had a curved screen for years.
And the burn-in surpasses OLED too.
Sure its heavy and bulky, but at least it keeps my room warm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221698</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe ...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1266745560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OLED got some very nice properties over LCD and plasma screens, but I think the LED backlight was the killer. For the prices we're talking here, you can have a bunch of them selectively backlighting or not backlighting the screen. There's some trickery to this true, but if you look at some of the new LCDs out like <a href="http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/tvs/274963/lg-demos-6-9mm-local-dimming-led-backlit-lcd-tv" title="expertreviews.co.uk">this</a> [expertreviews.co.uk] it says "a 240-block local dimming LED backlight". At that point you're starting to fake it rather well, with a dynamic contrast in the millions rather than in the thousands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OLED got some very nice properties over LCD and plasma screens , but I think the LED backlight was the killer .
For the prices we 're talking here , you can have a bunch of them selectively backlighting or not backlighting the screen .
There 's some trickery to this true , but if you look at some of the new LCDs out like this [ expertreviews.co.uk ] it says " a 240-block local dimming LED backlight " .
At that point you 're starting to fake it rather well , with a dynamic contrast in the millions rather than in the thousands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OLED got some very nice properties over LCD and plasma screens, but I think the LED backlight was the killer.
For the prices we're talking here, you can have a bunch of them selectively backlighting or not backlighting the screen.
There's some trickery to this true, but if you look at some of the new LCDs out like this [expertreviews.co.uk] it says "a 240-block local dimming LED backlight".
At that point you're starting to fake it rather well, with a dynamic contrast in the millions rather than in the thousands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219006</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266773160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they're only lower power consuming than LCDs when the image being displayed is mostly black, otherwise they actually use MORE power.  they also have burn-in issues that rival old CRTs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're only lower power consuming than LCDs when the image being displayed is mostly black , otherwise they actually use MORE power .
they also have burn-in issues that rival old CRTs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're only lower power consuming than LCDs when the image being displayed is mostly black, otherwise they actually use MORE power.
they also have burn-in issues that rival old CRTs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218624</id>
	<title>Re:Jeopardy</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1266769680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.</p></div><p>What's even more confusing is that it would be so plausible, especially because Sony distributes <i>Jeopardy!</i> and <i>Wheel of Fortune</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.What 's even more confusing is that it would be so plausible , especially because Sony distributes Jeopardy !
and Wheel of Fortune .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.What's even more confusing is that it would be so plausible, especially because Sony distributes Jeopardy!
and Wheel of Fortune.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218444</id>
	<title>11 inches?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266767760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly who the hell would want a 11" TV to begin with? The only people that'd need something like this probably couldn't give less of a shit whether it's OLED or not. I don't see any practical applications for such a TV that'd make it sell like hotcakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly who the hell would want a 11 " TV to begin with ?
The only people that 'd need something like this probably could n't give less of a shit whether it 's OLED or not .
I do n't see any practical applications for such a TV that 'd make it sell like hotcakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly who the hell would want a 11" TV to begin with?
The only people that'd need something like this probably couldn't give less of a shit whether it's OLED or not.
I don't see any practical applications for such a TV that'd make it sell like hotcakes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218764</id>
	<title>quantum effects causing rare earth migration</title>
	<author>lkcl</author>
	<datestamp>1266771180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the problem is that the rare earth metals on which the nice bright colours rely are migrating to the edges of their cells, on panel sizes of greater than 10cm x 10cm (hence why they can be successfully used in small products like cellphones, where the lifetime of the product is expected to be short).</p><p>i've heard of this kind of problem before (a 10cm x 10cm limit) on an unrelated product so it is quite likely that there is a quantum phase transition effect which has not been a) understood b) scientifically properly investigated.</p><p>the thing is, rare earth metals were picked because they're supposed to be utterly inert!  they're not supposed to move!  but it looks like somebody was completely wrong on that, and it hints at some extremely interesting scientific quantum mechanics breakthrough, if only someone could actually work out what the hell it all means.</p><p>but basically, it means that the core problem which OLED engineers have been trying to work around (and haven't told you about, because they don't understand it themselves, and it's Not Your Problem Anyway) hasn't been solved in several years, and until it is, OLED technology won't be viable, unless you're happy to pay for a product with a lifetime of about 1,000 hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the problem is that the rare earth metals on which the nice bright colours rely are migrating to the edges of their cells , on panel sizes of greater than 10cm x 10cm ( hence why they can be successfully used in small products like cellphones , where the lifetime of the product is expected to be short ) .i 've heard of this kind of problem before ( a 10cm x 10cm limit ) on an unrelated product so it is quite likely that there is a quantum phase transition effect which has not been a ) understood b ) scientifically properly investigated.the thing is , rare earth metals were picked because they 're supposed to be utterly inert !
they 're not supposed to move !
but it looks like somebody was completely wrong on that , and it hints at some extremely interesting scientific quantum mechanics breakthrough , if only someone could actually work out what the hell it all means.but basically , it means that the core problem which OLED engineers have been trying to work around ( and have n't told you about , because they do n't understand it themselves , and it 's Not Your Problem Anyway ) has n't been solved in several years , and until it is , OLED technology wo n't be viable , unless you 're happy to pay for a product with a lifetime of about 1,000 hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the problem is that the rare earth metals on which the nice bright colours rely are migrating to the edges of their cells, on panel sizes of greater than 10cm x 10cm (hence why they can be successfully used in small products like cellphones, where the lifetime of the product is expected to be short).i've heard of this kind of problem before (a 10cm x 10cm limit) on an unrelated product so it is quite likely that there is a quantum phase transition effect which has not been a) understood b) scientifically properly investigated.the thing is, rare earth metals were picked because they're supposed to be utterly inert!
they're not supposed to move!
but it looks like somebody was completely wrong on that, and it hints at some extremely interesting scientific quantum mechanics breakthrough, if only someone could actually work out what the hell it all means.but basically, it means that the core problem which OLED engineers have been trying to work around (and haven't told you about, because they don't understand it themselves, and it's Not Your Problem Anyway) hasn't been solved in several years, and until it is, OLED technology won't be viable, unless you're happy to pay for a product with a lifetime of about 1,000 hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220322</id>
	<title>The word 'Jeopardy' being capitalized threw me off</title>
	<author>Draykwing</author>
	<datestamp>1266780360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My initial reaction was, "So THAT's how they have such narrow borders on the clue displays!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>My initial reaction was , " So THAT 's how they have such narrow borders on the clue displays !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My initial reaction was, "So THAT's how they have such narrow borders on the clue displays!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218908</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266772560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>+ no ghosting at all</p></div><p>There's burn in, due to the short lives of the pixels, especially blue. Technically not ghosting, but there can be a residual image.</p><p>For example, if you have a bright blue box in a corner of the display for two hours, and then fill the screen with bright white, you'll see a faint yellowish spot where that box was.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ no ghosting at allThere 's burn in , due to the short lives of the pixels , especially blue .
Technically not ghosting , but there can be a residual image.For example , if you have a bright blue box in a corner of the display for two hours , and then fill the screen with bright white , you 'll see a faint yellowish spot where that box was .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+ no ghosting at allThere's burn in, due to the short lives of the pixels, especially blue.
Technically not ghosting, but there can be a residual image.For example, if you have a bright blue box in a corner of the display for two hours, and then fill the screen with bright white, you'll see a faint yellowish spot where that box was.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328</id>
	<title>Jeopardy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266766620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.</p><p>Stop confusing me, Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.Stop confusing me , Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At first I thought this article meant that OLEDs were actually the curved display panels in the Jeopardy TV show.Stop confusing me, Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220534</id>
	<title>Re:size, not technology</title>
	<author>theskipper</author>
	<datestamp>1266781320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the problems is that Sony's unit was based on lower IQE fluorescent OLED .  Which required lots of heatsinking and precludes larger sizes than, say, 15".  Phosphorescent OLED is where the true future of OLED lies and both LG and Samsung are using Universal Display's PHOLED red right now as a hybrid with fluorescent blue (green is imminent, deep blue is still a ways off).  It's a matter of getting production going on gen 3.5+ lines and reducing distortion in the masking process.</p><p>One other thing, even if larger displays don't pan out, OLED lighting still has huge potential.  Maybe even more than the smaller phone and pmp displays that are currently in the Zune and Samsung phones now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the problems is that Sony 's unit was based on lower IQE fluorescent OLED .
Which required lots of heatsinking and precludes larger sizes than , say , 15 " .
Phosphorescent OLED is where the true future of OLED lies and both LG and Samsung are using Universal Display 's PHOLED red right now as a hybrid with fluorescent blue ( green is imminent , deep blue is still a ways off ) .
It 's a matter of getting production going on gen 3.5 + lines and reducing distortion in the masking process.One other thing , even if larger displays do n't pan out , OLED lighting still has huge potential .
Maybe even more than the smaller phone and pmp displays that are currently in the Zune and Samsung phones now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the problems is that Sony's unit was based on lower IQE fluorescent OLED .
Which required lots of heatsinking and precludes larger sizes than, say, 15".
Phosphorescent OLED is where the true future of OLED lies and both LG and Samsung are using Universal Display's PHOLED red right now as a hybrid with fluorescent blue (green is imminent, deep blue is still a ways off).
It's a matter of getting production going on gen 3.5+ lines and reducing distortion in the masking process.One other thing, even if larger displays don't pan out, OLED lighting still has huge potential.
Maybe even more than the smaller phone and pmp displays that are currently in the Zune and Samsung phones now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304</id>
	<title>If so what instead?</title>
	<author>yakumo.unr</author>
	<datestamp>1266766440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sick of backlit LCDs.<br>CNT and Diamond tech seems to have vanished from the news completely.</p><p>OLED is/was nice but a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dream, and they were promised what, 7 years ago now?</p><p>I don't mind if they want to drop OLED as long as they're going to be ramping up production on something better hard and fast instead of squeezing the life out of  LED. LED is ok as it got cheap, but it is not great technology for a lot of uses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sick of backlit LCDs.CNT and Diamond tech seems to have vanished from the news completely.OLED is/was nice but a thin display without native rez , and CRT colour quality is still my dream , and they were promised what , 7 years ago now ? I do n't mind if they want to drop OLED as long as they 're going to be ramping up production on something better hard and fast instead of squeezing the life out of LED .
LED is ok as it got cheap , but it is not great technology for a lot of uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sick of backlit LCDs.CNT and Diamond tech seems to have vanished from the news completely.OLED is/was nice but a thin display without native rez, and CRT colour quality is still my dream, and they were promised what, 7 years ago now?I don't mind if they want to drop OLED as long as they're going to be ramping up production on something better hard and fast instead of squeezing the life out of  LED.
LED is ok as it got cheap, but it is not great technology for a lot of uses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31225034</id>
	<title>Re:If so what instead?</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1266767700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> I think you will find that OLED has come under attack from LCD LED, a two layer screen, LCD layer for colour, white LED for light, one led for each LCD set (three colours plus white). So a series of additional steps in the manufacture of LCD panels to incorporate LEDs within the panel versus a complete new production plant for OLED panels. </p><p> Of course the dream of flexible roll up monitors is now further away. Of course when you think about incorporating LEDs in the LCD panels, it looks so sensible it is a wonder it hasn't been done yet, but then it is the old patent stretch, keeping out technology whilst you maximise profits, a good example of this is of course near dead texas instruments DLP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you will find that OLED has come under attack from LCD LED , a two layer screen , LCD layer for colour , white LED for light , one led for each LCD set ( three colours plus white ) .
So a series of additional steps in the manufacture of LCD panels to incorporate LEDs within the panel versus a complete new production plant for OLED panels .
Of course the dream of flexible roll up monitors is now further away .
Of course when you think about incorporating LEDs in the LCD panels , it looks so sensible it is a wonder it has n't been done yet , but then it is the old patent stretch , keeping out technology whilst you maximise profits , a good example of this is of course near dead texas instruments DLP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I think you will find that OLED has come under attack from LCD LED, a two layer screen, LCD layer for colour, white LED for light, one led for each LCD set (three colours plus white).
So a series of additional steps in the manufacture of LCD panels to incorporate LEDs within the panel versus a complete new production plant for OLED panels.
Of course the dream of flexible roll up monitors is now further away.
Of course when you think about incorporating LEDs in the LCD panels, it looks so sensible it is a wonder it hasn't been done yet, but then it is the old patent stretch, keeping out technology whilst you maximise profits, a good example of this is of course near dead texas instruments DLP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218832</id>
	<title>It's not ready.</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1266771780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's far to expensive, and at present they can get better performance and better size out of liquid crystals. The XEL-1 sells abysmally, it costs more than a substantially larger screen with comparable quality. No amount of early adopters are going to fix that, and it'd likely be crazy for Sony to push it too hard in a much better economy, forget the one we're in today.</p><p>The day will come for OLEDs, just like it came for blue lasers in optical drives(I remember hearing about those when CD drives were still around 4x and DVDs were still pretty rare. There will be a tech break through and the cost will drop, or the limits of liquid crystals will finally be reached and companies will be forced to go to new technology, but it hasn't happened yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's far to expensive , and at present they can get better performance and better size out of liquid crystals .
The XEL-1 sells abysmally , it costs more than a substantially larger screen with comparable quality .
No amount of early adopters are going to fix that , and it 'd likely be crazy for Sony to push it too hard in a much better economy , forget the one we 're in today.The day will come for OLEDs , just like it came for blue lasers in optical drives ( I remember hearing about those when CD drives were still around 4x and DVDs were still pretty rare .
There will be a tech break through and the cost will drop , or the limits of liquid crystals will finally be reached and companies will be forced to go to new technology , but it has n't happened yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's far to expensive, and at present they can get better performance and better size out of liquid crystals.
The XEL-1 sells abysmally, it costs more than a substantially larger screen with comparable quality.
No amount of early adopters are going to fix that, and it'd likely be crazy for Sony to push it too hard in a much better economy, forget the one we're in today.The day will come for OLEDs, just like it came for blue lasers in optical drives(I remember hearing about those when CD drives were still around 4x and DVDs were still pretty rare.
There will be a tech break through and the cost will drop, or the limits of liquid crystals will finally be reached and companies will be forced to go to new technology, but it hasn't happened yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221416</id>
	<title>Re:Or maybe ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266743640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well</p><p>In 2007, experimental OLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs.</p><p>So if I leave the TV on 24/7 it will only last 7 years....... My last 2 TV's did not last that long. So I can live with that (and they did not run 24/7, so 62.000 hours is plenty of time for me)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wellIn 2007 , experimental OLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs.So if I leave the TV on 24/7 it will only last 7 years....... My last 2 TV 's did not last that long .
So I can live with that ( and they did not run 24/7 , so 62.000 hours is plenty of time for me )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wellIn 2007, experimental OLEDs were created which can sustain 400 cd/m of luminance for over 198,000 hours for green OLEDs and 62,000 hours for blue OLEDs.So if I leave the TV on 24/7 it will only last 7 years....... My last 2 TV's did not last that long.
So I can live with that (and they did not run 24/7, so 62.000 hours is plenty of time for me)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218548</id>
	<title>SONY is almost irrelevant</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266768900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not take SONY serious these days. They were the leaders but are a shadow of their former self. SAMSUNG matters to me and the world now.</p><p>Heck, from 2005, there was a <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05\_41/b3954047.htm" title="businessweek.com"> business lesson for SONY at Samsung.</a> [businessweek.com] For SONY, they had their time and that was decades ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not take SONY serious these days .
They were the leaders but are a shadow of their former self .
SAMSUNG matters to me and the world now.Heck , from 2005 , there was a business lesson for SONY at Samsung .
[ businessweek.com ] For SONY , they had their time and that was decades ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not take SONY serious these days.
They were the leaders but are a shadow of their former self.
SAMSUNG matters to me and the world now.Heck, from 2005, there was a  business lesson for SONY at Samsung.
[businessweek.com] For SONY, they had their time and that was decades ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220132</id>
	<title>Re:There will be no more variable resolution displ</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1266779460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sad thing isn't the hard native resolution of LCDs; but the fact that software hasn't caught up to that yet.<br> <br>

It is a real issue, particularly for older users or the visually impaired, that a 21inch CRT driven at 800x600, or some similarly low resolution will look pretty much fine, while a 20inch LCD panel will look like a blocky, badly scaled, mess. This is only because resolution independence isn't really Quite There Yet for most software. Sure, you can change the DPI settings; but that will break a host of legacy crap, and have no effect whatsoever on things like certain games that draw their own entirely custom interfaces.<br> <br>

Once the resolution independent vector-goodness finally filters down to the point of being actually usable in real world software setups, "native resolution" will no longer matter in the slightest, except as defining the upper bound for a given monitor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sad thing is n't the hard native resolution of LCDs ; but the fact that software has n't caught up to that yet .
It is a real issue , particularly for older users or the visually impaired , that a 21inch CRT driven at 800x600 , or some similarly low resolution will look pretty much fine , while a 20inch LCD panel will look like a blocky , badly scaled , mess .
This is only because resolution independence is n't really Quite There Yet for most software .
Sure , you can change the DPI settings ; but that will break a host of legacy crap , and have no effect whatsoever on things like certain games that draw their own entirely custom interfaces .
Once the resolution independent vector-goodness finally filters down to the point of being actually usable in real world software setups , " native resolution " will no longer matter in the slightest , except as defining the upper bound for a given monitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sad thing isn't the hard native resolution of LCDs; but the fact that software hasn't caught up to that yet.
It is a real issue, particularly for older users or the visually impaired, that a 21inch CRT driven at 800x600, or some similarly low resolution will look pretty much fine, while a 20inch LCD panel will look like a blocky, badly scaled, mess.
This is only because resolution independence isn't really Quite There Yet for most software.
Sure, you can change the DPI settings; but that will break a host of legacy crap, and have no effect whatsoever on things like certain games that draw their own entirely custom interfaces.
Once the resolution independent vector-goodness finally filters down to the point of being actually usable in real world software setups, "native resolution" will no longer matter in the slightest, except as defining the upper bound for a given monitor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222036</id>
	<title>Re:So</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1266747960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for flexible/ultra-thin, all those traits apply as well, if not more-so, to DLP tech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for flexible/ultra-thin , all those traits apply as well , if not more-so , to DLP tech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for flexible/ultra-thin, all those traits apply as well, if not more-so, to DLP tech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372</id>
	<title>Or maybe ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266766980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>LCD LED and Plasma TVs are (so) good enough for everyone, people currently don't want to spend kilobucks on technology that's not even ready from prime time (OLED TVs some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic\_LED#Disadvantages" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">nasty problems</a> [wikipedia.org])?

Be patient, gentlemen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>LCD LED and Plasma TVs are ( so ) good enough for everyone , people currently do n't want to spend kilobucks on technology that 's not even ready from prime time ( OLED TVs some nasty problems [ wikipedia.org ] ) ?
Be patient , gentlemen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LCD LED and Plasma TVs are (so) good enough for everyone, people currently don't want to spend kilobucks on technology that's not even ready from prime time (OLED TVs some nasty problems [wikipedia.org])?
Be patient, gentlemen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218606</id>
	<title>Re:Who said OLED is dying?</title>
	<author>FluffyWithTeeth</author>
	<datestamp>1266769500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Netcraft confirms it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Netcraft confirms it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netcraft confirms it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218830</id>
	<title>OLED's not dead yet!</title>
	<author>tsmoke</author>
	<datestamp>1266771720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sony's expectation for the XEL-1 was never anything other than establishing brand recognition as the leaders in OLED. The truth is that while the display cost ~2500, the manufacturing costs probably were around ~5K as a function of the very lossy shadow mask technology they use for deposition of the organic material. The project was never sustainable, nor intended to be.</p><p>The technologies for manufacturing remain very immature, but the major display manufacturers, material developers and equipment vendors are investing major resources into solutions. A better bellweather for display technologies may be the Koreans (Samsung, LG) and the Taiwanese (AUO, etc). These folks are chasing the rabbit pretty hard.</p><p>There is also a Silicon Valley startup that is developing an interesting solution named <a href="http://www.kateeva.com/" title="kateeva.com" rel="nofollow">Kateeva</a> [kateeva.com]. Spun out of MIT, the company is developing a solution that marries the material advantages of evaporation with the simplified deposition approach of ink-jet. More information (and video!) at this recent article from <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/24520/?a=f" title="technologyreview.com" rel="nofollow">Technology Review</a> [technologyreview.com].</p><p>Disclosure: I do have an interest in Kateeva...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sony 's expectation for the XEL-1 was never anything other than establishing brand recognition as the leaders in OLED .
The truth is that while the display cost ~ 2500 , the manufacturing costs probably were around ~ 5K as a function of the very lossy shadow mask technology they use for deposition of the organic material .
The project was never sustainable , nor intended to be.The technologies for manufacturing remain very immature , but the major display manufacturers , material developers and equipment vendors are investing major resources into solutions .
A better bellweather for display technologies may be the Koreans ( Samsung , LG ) and the Taiwanese ( AUO , etc ) .
These folks are chasing the rabbit pretty hard.There is also a Silicon Valley startup that is developing an interesting solution named Kateeva [ kateeva.com ] .
Spun out of MIT , the company is developing a solution that marries the material advantages of evaporation with the simplified deposition approach of ink-jet .
More information ( and video !
) at this recent article from Technology Review [ technologyreview.com ] .Disclosure : I do have an interest in Kateeva.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sony's expectation for the XEL-1 was never anything other than establishing brand recognition as the leaders in OLED.
The truth is that while the display cost ~2500, the manufacturing costs probably were around ~5K as a function of the very lossy shadow mask technology they use for deposition of the organic material.
The project was never sustainable, nor intended to be.The technologies for manufacturing remain very immature, but the major display manufacturers, material developers and equipment vendors are investing major resources into solutions.
A better bellweather for display technologies may be the Koreans (Samsung, LG) and the Taiwanese (AUO, etc).
These folks are chasing the rabbit pretty hard.There is also a Silicon Valley startup that is developing an interesting solution named Kateeva [kateeva.com].
Spun out of MIT, the company is developing a solution that marries the material advantages of evaporation with the simplified deposition approach of ink-jet.
More information (and video!
) at this recent article from Technology Review [technologyreview.com].Disclosure: I do have an interest in Kateeva...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219294</id>
	<title>Re:There will be no more variable resolution displ</title>
	<author>yakumo.unr</author>
	<datestamp>1266775380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both CNT and the kind of similar Diamond tech promised CRT-like no native rez however, and the ease-on-the-eye of LCD, but with CRT colour.<br>Though yes I am well aware of recommended resolutions of CRT's they still other resolutions far better than scaling on LCD's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both CNT and the kind of similar Diamond tech promised CRT-like no native rez however , and the ease-on-the-eye of LCD , but with CRT colour.Though yes I am well aware of recommended resolutions of CRT 's they still other resolutions far better than scaling on LCD 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both CNT and the kind of similar Diamond tech promised CRT-like no native rez however, and the ease-on-the-eye of LCD, but with CRT colour.Though yes I am well aware of recommended resolutions of CRT's they still other resolutions far better than scaling on LCD's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31225034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31226726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31224558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31227554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_21_1244257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220132
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31224558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219294
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31225034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218746
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222830
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31221416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218882
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31227554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218548
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31223624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31222036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31219006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31220194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_21_1244257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31226726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_21_1244257.31218606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
