I'll have to do some rummaging around on most of your questions.
But re the OLEDs, I think they might ultimately cheaper for some applications. The key word is "ultimately".
One way to look at the differences is to sort of tot up the equivalencies or lack thereof.
OLED
LC, two polarizers - OLED, no equiv (or 1 contrast layer?)
LC, alignment material - OLED, maybe equiv to OLED material layers
LC, mechanical rubbing - OLED, no equivalent
LC, clean mfg/assy - OLED, humidity-free(!!!) environment
(essentially like vacuum system)
LC, backlight (none if reflective) - OLED, no backlight required
The way I see it, the scrupulously humidity-free manufacture and assembly demand of OLEDs probably offsets (and initially outweighs) the additional materials and steps for LCs (which are cents, not dollars type items).
LCs with with backlights are going to be more expensive, a luminance-dependent cost item (could be small, could be big if bright).
There presently appears to be luminance/life trade with the OLEDs. So, passive-matrix OLEDs might not compete where a fair amount of luminance is required. There is the option available to go to active matrix (where each dot can be latched on instead of flashed) as in AM LCs. I would think the added cost for active matrix would be a wash between the two technologies. If good OLED lifetime can be established, maybe active matrix OLED could eventually be some cheaper after the technology matures for a while (no time soon, as with any emergent technology). The backlight costs go up for larger or brighter LC displays.
I dunno if I have covered all the salient differences, so I'll keep my ear to the ground. Hope that helps a little. JimA |
