backtop


Print 59 comment(s) - last by TerranMagistra.. on Jan 23 at 2:09 AM

LG will refocus on building displays for high-end smartphones with new assembly line

Among some of the hardest hit technology firms in the global economic downturn are LCD makers. As demand for products like TVs, notebooks, and other products using LCDs dropped, companies like LG, the world's second largest LCD maker, have been on rough times.

Those tough times may soon be over according to LG chief executive Kwon Young-soo. The executive told attendees at a press conference that the market had hit bottom and prices were expected to begin to rise again. Kwon said, "The good news is that we've reached a bottom. TV panel prices will likely stop the downward trend and recover."

Analysts expect LCD makers to continue losing money through the first half of 2009 as the demand for electronics continues to decline. Kwon's firm LG reported its worst quarterly results ever last week. The main source of the massive loss the firm posted was due to the $400 million fine that was imposed on the company in the U.S. LCD price fixing scandal.

LG also announced last week that it would refocus on high-end mobile displays. The company will invest 577 billion won (about $427 million USD) to build a new production line to produce the premium screens for mobile devices.

The new line will build displays using LTPS (low temperature polysilicon) technology that will allow the screens to produce better images and allow LG to get into the booming smartphone market. With the investment into mobile phone LCD making, LG will be competing head-to-head with Sharp Corp and Samsung Mobile Display.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

rock bottom
By tastyratz on 1/19/2009 12:28:44 PM , Rating: 5
My rear end.
Ever since the price fixing scandal I haven't seen lcd television prices change. It's been long enough to trickle down to the consumer... Why haven't we seen this reflected in our prices?
The complaint was that they sell for close to what they sold for years ago and that still rings true.




RE: rock bottom
By darkblueslider on 1/19/2009 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 3
not in the shops i've been looking at.


RE: rock bottom
By Lonyo on 1/19/2009 12:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Same.
I bought the cheapest 17" LCD monitor I could 3 1/2 years ago, at £150. Now I can get a 19" for £80.
20" monitor just under 2 years ago for £150. Now? £100.
TV prices similarly have come down, although I don't know exact numbers since I never bought any at old prices.


RE: rock bottom
By Motoman on 1/19/2009 1:31:52 PM , Rating: 3
...on Black Friday, I bought a 42" 1080p LCD TV for $600...which, granted, was a loss-leader Black Friday special. But still.

Also recently bought 22" LCD monitors ranging in cost (including rebates) from $120 to $150.


RE: rock bottom
By StevoLincolnite on 1/19/2009 6:19:17 PM , Rating: 3
I managed to score a 32" LG LCD 720P for the games room at only $750 Australian, and then bought a 52" 1080P screen for $1200 Aus to have in the lounge room to watch TV on, considering the 32" screens used to be upwards of over a grand... and the 52" screens were well over 2 grand, I did well.


RE: rock bottom
By dj LiTh on 1/20/2009 5:27:01 AM , Rating: 4
Aussie dollars, thats comparable to disney dollars? Hehe j/k... ok you made me check the exchange rate...

1.5 aussie dollars = 1.0 usa dollars
1.0 disney dollars = 87239875892708671782638174.2 Zimbabwe dollars


RE: rock bottom
By Motoman on 1/20/2009 10:43:00 AM , Rating: 2
...at first I started to roll my eyes at your Zimbabwe dollars exchange rate, but then...


RE: rock bottom
By Oregonian2 on 1/19/2009 4:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
What country are you in and in "which money" are you looking at prices with? He undoubtedly is talking about whatever it is that Korea calls their money -- how has your money (dollars?) shifted in value relative to theirs? Over the past few years (other than this past year where there has been a reversal) the dollar has been dropping against some of the other currencies such that a stable US price may actually be a dropping price in terms of what the maker received for it.


RE: rock bottom
By MadMan007 on 1/19/2009 1:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
They had to recover the fine costs by keeping prices higher, just not in a price-fixing collusion manner. Oh, the irony.


RE: rock bottom
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2009 2:13:31 PM , Rating: 1
You can get a 52" LCD for $1000 now, how is that not lower than it used to be?


RE: rock bottom
By TomZ on 1/19/2009 2:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My rear end.
Agreed - any CEO trying to "call the bottom" is probably full of sh!t - it's just wishful thinking. He can't see the future any better than anyone else.


RE: rock bottom
By BansheeX on 1/19/2009 3:37:08 PM , Rating: 3
It certainly conflicts with the economy of scale. Technology is one of those things that tends to go down in spite of inflation, though maybe if Keynesians create enough of it, it will eventually go up with everything else. Keynesians (idiots) would consider the computer sector to be in a hyperdeflationary spiral. Prices are going down while quality/performance is going up, it breaks every rule in their book.

Austrian economists, however, would contend that falling prices are natural and beneficial, and that stating the contrary is merely a ruse to justify fiat currency and government excess. Instead of selling few products at high prices, producers sell many products at low prices. The more units you can produce relative to costs, the more people can get them. Right now, the Keynesians are trying to keep the price of shelter unaffordable in order to prevent the banks from inheriting worthless collateral that was bid up by their own loans. The reason so many loans were made is because the risk of loaning money isn't set by banks individually (the market), it's set centrally by the central bank and other legislature under social engineering concepts. High interest rates encourage savings and investment and discourage reckless borrowing, but the last time we had a recession, Greenspan lowered them to 1%. That easy credit encouraged more reckless consumption instead of savings to build factories, export products, and service our debt to foreigners. Now they're trying to do the same thing, except this time, foreigners aren't lining up to buy our debt at negative interest. Not with trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see to build infrastructure, make welfare payouts, and other non-exportables.


RE: rock bottom
By Hlafordlaes on 1/19/2009 4:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that Greenspan et al didn't follow the monetarist model (a la Volker*) well enough, by directly setting rates instead of setting a moderate-growth money supply target. In short, he dropped his shorts for Clinton and then bent over for Bush.

Keynesians are concerned with aggregate demand generation when private demand is insufficient to avoid severe recession and depression. This is especially needed when demand will not recover in the face of consumer over-pessimism combined with business downsizing: "if tomorrow will be worse, spend less" is the spiral-down logic, and Keynesian demand generation via public investment makes a lot of sense in that context (inflationary otherwise).

*Whipped stagflation under Carter/Reagan1 by controlling the money supply, letting interest rates skyrocket (via market forces) and setting investment and spending patterns to a level that made aggregate demand mesh more closely with supply, stabilizing prices. Carter got the blame, but he had the balls to allow Volker to do what was needed. To me it is reassuring to see Volker form part of the new admin.


RE: rock bottom
By BansheeX on 1/19/2009 5:41:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My understanding is that Greenspan et al didn't follow the monetarist model (a la Volker*) well enough, by directly setting rates instead of setting a moderate-growth money supply target. In short, he dropped his shorts for Clinton and then bent over for Bush.


Yes, but anyone who understands human nature knows that this expectation is as foolish as arguing for a benevolent dictator as a form of government. In theory, a benevolent dictator would overcome the inefficiencies of a republic's checks and balances. In practice, the power is too concentrated, it unintentionally incurs costs greater than those seen in a republic. I don't know why Friedman didn't understand that, he was a good Libertarian and he meant well, but monetarists turn into Keynesians in practice.

So of course central bankers would collude with government, it was going to happen. We had the best model with market determined money and interest rates prior to 1913 when the Fed was created.

quote:
Keynesians are concerned with aggregate demand generation when private demand is insufficient to avoid severe recession and depression. This is especially needed when demand will not recover in the face of consumer over-pessimism combined with business downsizing: "if tomorrow will be worse, spend less" is the spiral-down logic, and Keynesian demand generation via public investment makes a lot of sense in that context (inflationary otherwise).


But that's nonsense, they're putting the cart before the horse. Economies aren't driven by borrowing and consumption, they're driven by savings and production. Savings is underconsumption and without savings, there is no means to produce what we consume. If consumers are spending less, they're saving more. That's exactly what this economy needs. The problem isn't "over-pessimism." The problem was the over-confidence in the artificial boom that preceded it. The idea that the government in such debt now needs to step in and spend future generations' savings to keep homes unaffordable is ridiculous. We don't WANT to reinflate another phony growth spurt. We want to correct the imbalances NOW so that ultimately we can have a real economy wherein people aren't borrowing precious capital to buy things that takes savings to produce.

Imagine an individual in a tremendous amount of debt, he keeps borrowing more from people until his interest obligations are so high that he has to borrow extra and counterfeit money just to pay off the interest on previous loans. This only works so long as he can perpetually find new willing lenders. Some of the new loans he uses to pay off existing interest obligations, and the rest he uses to remodel his kitchen. In a flurry of paper transactions, he comes out with the actual wealth.

Look familiar? It's a Ponzi scheme, this is how the government operates our treasury market.


RE: rock bottom
By hiscross on 1/19/2009 8:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
Good response. One more thing, we need to be on the Gold and Silver Standard. We've done that in the past and always had great success. However, the money scientist and the politicians they own hate that idea.


RE: rock bottom
By EvilBlitz on 1/19/2009 9:32:22 PM , Rating: 3
I fail to see how getting people do dig up and mine large amounts gold and then stick it in a big vault with people guarding it is somehow going to make your economy more prosperous or less prone to collapse.
Having some rare(ish) metal backing the value of your currency is no more secure than the current fiat system.


RE: rock bottom
By BansheeX on 1/19/2009 11:19:54 PM , Rating: 3
That's wrong, of course. Unlike fiat notes, gold cannot be counterfeited at no labor or material cost by government to avoid the resistance of physical appropriation (tax). That's why it's considered an inflation hedge and nobody's liability. Gold's value is based on a material scarcity, whereas fiat's value is based a manufactured scarcity of a common material. Overmanufacture/hyperinflation, whatever you want to call it, is the inevitable end of all fiat currencies. It happened to the Continental dollar shortly after this country's birth, so the framers implicitly banned fiat in the constitution. The constitution only grants the federal government the power to coin money, that's why it had to subvert it by creating the Federal Reserve. It's a private/public symbiosis that that buys government bonds on the open market with its magic checkbook. Besides unconstitutionally existing, they are now abusing their charter by buying up private debt and assets. At least I hope there's not some rule in there that allows them to throw the rulebook out in a self-declared emergency.

100% gold backing is an essential ingredient to preventing catastrophic episodes like this and destroying entire generations. But it can't prevent government from skirting or abandoning its discipline. We are ultimately responsible for allowing things like fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve. People are just too dumb when it comes to money to see them as threats to their livelihood. I'll bet nobody in 1913 saw the first depression coming. It was the progressive era, they were willing to believe that central planning was some fresh idea that could make them grow even faster. But all it did was give them a proportionate boom and bust cycle.


RE: rock bottom
By EvilBlitz on 1/19/2009 9:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
The best model prior to 1913? You might want to change that view point. The USA had financial crises in 1873, 1884 ,1890, 1893 and 1907. 1873, 1893 and 1907 were all quite bad.

While Ill agree that in the case of the USA and others there was excessive lending(reflected in bad current accounts for years and no one does anything!) it would not had been so bad if the quality of the lending wasn't so poor.
Apart from the issues of excessive debt and leveraging was that so much of the money was spent on non productive assets, particularly housing.
Debt is not bad as long as it used to expand production and capacity.
However I am not sure if any model or regulations will stop these crises from happening again, I think it is probably just part of humanities limitless greed.


RE: rock bottom
By Nfarce on 1/19/2009 9:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apart from the issues of excessive debt and leveraging was that so much of the money was spent on non productive assets, particularly housing. Debt is not bad as long as it used to expand production and capacity.


Interesting. How would you define a productive asset to leverage?


RE: rock bottom
By EvilBlitz on 1/19/2009 10:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well if consider your normal house. It does nothing, it does nothing to add to the capacity of the economy.
For all intents in purposes apart from keeping you warm and dry it sits there and slowly degrades.
It is quite hard to quantify as it doesn't have to have to be something that generates only physical products, as services are such a large part of today's economy.
However I guess maybe you could say it is something that would generates value for you, but not of the speculative or paper profit kind.


RE: rock bottom
By Nfarce on 1/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: rock bottom
By BansheeX on 1/20/2009 12:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The best model prior to 1913? You might want to change that view point. The USA had financial crises in 1873, 1884 ,1890, 1893 and 1907. 1873, 1893 and 1907 were all quite bad.


First of all, realize that there is no perfect system and "best" does not mean "perfect." Second, most of those years were in fact banking panics caused by fractional reserve banking practices, which is simply legalized counterfeiting allowed in no other industry but banking. It allowed them to create redeemable notes for which no metal existed and loan them out at interest.

Rather than explain this and how it creates runs in detail, I'll leave you with a cute but very informative video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI


RE: rock bottom
By blwest on 1/20/2009 5:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In short, he dropped his shorts for Clinton and then bent over for Bush.


And didn't Clinton drop his shorts for Monica?


RE: rock bottom
By Oregonian2 on 1/19/2009 4:38:46 PM , Rating: 1
You're saying that he doesn't have any right to an opinion?


RE: rock bottom
By TomZ on 1/19/2009 4:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm just saying that most people that try to call the bottom, before it happens, are wrong. Let's face it - if that type of crystal ball prediction was really possible, there are much more profitable ways of putting that ability to use than being a CEO.

Anyway, getting back to it, I don't see the logic behind saying that during the global recession that is expected by most to continue through a good part of 2009, that LCD panel prices would bottom. If anything, I would expect continued decreased demand as well as continued competitive pressure to keep up supply. That's what's been going on so far - and I don't see anything that's really changed.

...other than a CEO who "hopes" that the worst has passed...


RE: rock bottom
By Oregonian2 on 1/21/2009 1:24:11 AM , Rating: 2
I might also mention that in economics (such as the current downturn) "thinking" up or down actually is partially self-fulfilling because personal buying is most of the market and that depends upon what one thinks (talking in the aggregate) so the market won't go up until people think it has bottomed out and start buying -- because it's that buying that is the cause of it bottoming out and going up again. Market direction has a large component of being self fulfilling in both the up and down directions.

That said, if he says that the LCD price drops are stopping and prices are going up, that may make people buy LCD panels *now* to avoid the prices going up -- and that will make it actually happen (demand goes up followed by prices going up).


RE: rock bottom
By omnicronx on 1/19/2009 3:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
Where on earth do you shop? Prices for LCD's are down almost 33% across the board since last year. In fact the trend seems to be the larger the display, the bigger the savings, which is not usually the norm.

LCD makers were assuming 2009 would be one of their best years ever (especially in the US), mainly because of the analogue shutdown. As such LCD manufacturers raced to produce as many displays they could for 2009. Well here we are, and the economy has hit the crapper, thus giving us a huge surplus of LCD's. It is no wonder prices have dropped considerably, and I would tend to agree with LG here that prices will probably rise very soon.


RE: rock bottom
By Tsuwamono on 1/19/2009 3:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
People would flip if they rose the prices. Old technology should never be MORE expensive as it gets older unless its due to only 1 manufacturer like PC100 style ram. Nobody builds it, so its expensive to find. Unless you know someone who can get you boxes of them in 1GB sticks.. *shifty eyes*


RE: rock bottom
By omnicronx on 1/19/2009 3:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Prices rise and fall all the time. Your ram example is not even a good one, before RAM bottomed out a few years ago, RAM prices would dramatically rise and fall depending on demand. People were buying them regardless, sometimes for 2x the price that it was 6 months prior.

LCD's will be no different, prices for brand name LCD's will rise, and we will see budget LCD's remain about the same. This has happened time and time again in the TV market, especially when a new feature comes around.


RE: rock bottom
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 12:45:48 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in the TV market CRTs kept dropping in price. Prior to the mid-90's, it was unheard of to get a 19" or larger set for under $200, then a 25", 27", then they started giving away the little B&W portables for free with Office Superstore orders over $50 or was it $100 with a coupon code.

We will see LCD prices drop more. It may take technological innovation to make that happen, or merely devaluation of current tech by higher pixel density panels in the future as well as greater capacity to manufacture larger panels.

If there was going to be a time when they could keep prices higher heading into a recession, it would be up to and slightly after the switchover to digital TV transmission. Anyone thinking about a set would tend to do that instead of reusing their old one with a tuner box.

After that period, so long as we contiune to have a recession the market simply won't support rising prices. Perhaps the market has hit bottom for now, but hitting bottom isn't necessarily followed by bouncing back immediately.


RE: rock bottom
By The Irish Patient on 1/19/2009 4:53:57 PM , Rating: 4
Down, but not across the board. 24 inch TN panels have seen a deep drop. What I've been following are 24-30 inch S-IPS monitors, and I haven't noticed much if any improvement in price over the last two years. The Dell 30 inch monitor has consistently been at $1,100 to $1,300 on sale, while the newer model (3008wfp) is up drastically at just under $2,000.

The Dell 2408wfp is currently at $689. I seriously doubt that a 24 inch VA panel really costs $350-$400 more to make than a TN panel. So, I don't find it hard to believe that prices of non-TN panels are artificially inflated.


RE: rock bottom
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 12:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
A huge surplus tends to cause prices to rise very soon? New one on me, seems more likely it means prices will be very good for awhile longer till this surplus is gone, or else they'll do what they always have, tighten their belts and find a cheaper way to make it.

It's a bit like he's just in denial and indulging in a bit of wishful thinking, as if his company is recession-proof or larger LCDs aren't luxury items.


RE: rock bottom
By Mitch101 on 1/19/2009 4:48:22 PM , Rating: 3
Two Words. "SUPER BOWL"

Prices on the smaller more PC sized LCD's 19-24" have been dropping but you wouldn't watch the big game on them.

Lots of people rush out to buy new Tv's right before the big game. So it may be that distributors are selling the sets lower to retail but the retail chains may be keeping the prices high to profitize on the big game.

Wait till after the superbowl.


RE: rock bottom
By cmdrdredd on 1/19/2009 5:00:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
My rear end. Ever since the price fixing scandal I haven't seen lcd television prices change. It's been long enough to trickle down to the consumer... Why haven't we seen this reflected in our prices? The complaint was that they sell for close to what they sold for years ago and that still rings true.


Plasma sets are better anyway and are actually cheaper than comparatively sized LCDs.


RE: rock bottom
By 67STANG on 1/19/2009 6:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
They are better, and they are worse. It depends on the specs you're looking at... Doesn't matter anyway. Plasmas started to fizzle out a year ago. There were only 2 on display at Best Buy when I was there last week-- everything else was LCD. Go figure, eh?


RE: rock bottom
By Nfarce on 1/19/2009 8:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I have both a Sammy 42" 720p plasma (my first flat screen purchase almost three years ago) and a recently purchased Sammy 46" 750 series LCD. Here are my thoughts:

The LCD cannot match the plasma's rich colors. The black level is about there, but the colors (like grass on a golf course) are just not even close to comparison. Gaming colors on the PS3 and Blu-Ray colors are much better too. There's also the price. Panasonic's Viera PZ85U 1080p plasma series are great bangs for the buck ($900 for the 42" and $1,200 for the 46"). For comparison at the 46" size, I paid ~$1,600 for a LN46A750 LCD Sammy.

However, the plasma uses way more power and produces way more heat than the larger LCD. In addition, I don't care what technology the newer plasmas have, you still have to watch for potential burn in issues. I can leave the PS3 on for hours at the main menu while attached to the LCD and not worry about it - not so with the plasma.

It's a tough call which one is better overall. To me, it's a draw since I live with both. Regarding LG, I have read a lot of issues with their LG70 series having HDMI problems. Many on AVS have had to have their boards replaced - not something I'd be happy about at all.

But I'll tell you one thing - if flat panel manufacturers jack up their prices like this guy is wishing for, I will most definitely put those five digit (in hours) life spans advertised to the freaking test.


RE: rock bottom
By jay401 on 1/19/2009 5:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah seriously, "rock bottom"? That's why the display I'm looking at is still the same price it was two months ago before the holidays. :rolleyes:
These tools need to start pricing this stuff more reasonably if they want buyers, especially in this economy.


RE: rock bottom
By Einy0 on 1/19/2009 6:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree but especially TVs in the 13" to 30" range. You used to be able to buy a tv for $75 to $200 in that range. A 13" for your kid to play games on. Forget about it now 15" seems to be the minimum size and those cost $130+ versus $75. I know these new LCD tvs are HD. But if HD is to become the standard then the prices need to be more reasonable. Larger LCDs are more reasonable compared to the old CRT prices. My 32" Flattube TV cost $600 but that was 5 years ago and that thing is huge. I be it cost $50 to ship to the store and over $300 to make. The LCDs don't cost $300 to make for 32" and are smaller and lighter by more than half.


RE: rock bottom
By Nfarce on 1/19/2009 9:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
Can't argue with that. A couple years ago I bought a little $85 Sylvania 13" CRT TV for the kitchen. It's a great TV but unnecessarily takes up counter space even in a corner for depth allowance. Now I'm looking at plunking down a minimum of $200 for an LCD in the 17" to 19" range (17" LCD TVs are getting hard to find these days and 15" LCD TVs even harder). Do a search on Amazon or NewEgg and you'll see what I mean.


RE: rock bottom
By hcahwk19 on 1/19/2009 9:41:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I remember when my dad bought a 32" Sony HDTV Tube about 8 years ago. It cost $1400. I just got a 32" Vizio 1080P two weeks ago for $550. I was surprised by the quality of the Vizio, picture or otherwise. The Sony died 1 week outside of the 4 year warranty we had. The power supply went out. That TV weighed over 100 lbs. We went that day and got a 32" Vizio at Sam's for $800. My brothers still use that one for their Xbox360 to this day, four years later. They have not had a single problem with that Vizio. Hopefully, mine will hold up just as well. I will probably go over to Sam's and get the 3 year extended warranty for $80 just in case.


RE: rock bottom
By Nfarce on 1/19/2009 10:35:43 PM , Rating: 3
Oh yeah, one of my friends had a 36" Sony HDTV tube years ago and it was nothing but a massive headache for them. Repair after repair after repair, and all under an extended warranty (smart move).

Imagine moving something that weighs over 200 pounds ever time it breaks! The wife had finally had enough and spent about a week bching Sony out until they agreed to take back the TV and give them a $1,000 credit (the original cost of the TV) towards the purchase of a new XBR3 LCD at the time. She is the definition of the squeaky wheel.


LG meh
By Ratinator on 1/19/2009 1:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe the fact that LG wouldn't even rank in the top three of LCD manufacturers I would purchase from is part of the problem.




RE: LG meh
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2009 2:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
LG makes a good product. I prefer Samsung but LG is not a bad brand. A lot of the time, different companies all use the same panel.


RE: LG meh
By TimberJon on 1/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: LG meh
By FITCamaro on 1/19/2009 4:00:33 PM , Rating: 2
Mitsubishi is a very good brand as well.


RE: LG meh
By Ratinator on 1/19/2009 4:34:14 PM , Rating: 3
Make that top 4


RE: LG meh
By boe on 1/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: LG meh
By Ratinator on 1/19/2009 4:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
I love my Samsung.....I spent time over several months in and out of stores looking at panels, investigating information all over the internet. In my opinion Samsung does make the best TV for the price. Sony is a close second with their inflated price for their name being an issue.


RE: LG meh
By IcePickFreak on 1/19/2009 7:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
I gotta vouch for Samsung as well. I've had a 22" LCD for my monitor for over 2 years now and have not had a single issue. Heck, even the stand that has height adjustment doesn't budge unless I want to til this day.
When I went shopping for a new TV last spring, Samsung was on my list with Panasonic and Pioneer, as I was set on a plasma over LCD. I ended up taking home the Samsung as to me it was the best compromise of performance and price. Some prefer Panasonics, but I liked the colors better on the Sammy and the adjustments available are ridiculous. Pioneers, while looking good, where almost twice the price!
Every thing I've read about LCD tv's either rates Samsung as a number 1 contender, or outright as the best LCD's with blacks that are near plasma quality.
My experience has been nothing but satisfying with either of my Samsung products and both pretty much see daily use.


Oh no...
By Whaaambulance on 1/19/2009 7:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
LG wont be filling the market with their terrible displays anymore... what will we do!?!?!




RE: Oh no...
By matt0401 on 1/19/2009 11:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand all the LG hate here. I've owned quite a few LG products in my life now and they've all been fantastic! Samsung seems to rank as the #1 here, and I can understand that (my LCD monitor is a Samsung, fantastic display), but LG makes fastastic stuff too! I got a 32" 720p TV made by LG on Boxing Day ($480 CAD too, not a bad deal at all) and it's been issue-free so far and the picture quality is great!


RE: Oh no...
By mindless1 on 1/20/2009 12:54:29 AM , Rating: 2
There was a time when LG was known as Lucky Goldstar, that their full name was marketed and they mostly shipped to NA only the cheapest junk TV sets. They've slowly changed their image but the further back you go the more likely you are to find displeased owners.


RE: Oh no...
By TerranMagistrate on 1/23/2009 2:09:03 AM , Rating: 2
I definitely agree.

LG has definitely become a brand-name manufacturer since their electronic and appliance products are top-notch now.


Rise in price?
By Elementalism on 1/19/2009 1:09:31 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that considering the economic situation.




RE: Rise in price?
By nycromes on 1/19/2009 1:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well, they can raise the prices.... their sales will head the opposite way though.


RE: Rise in price?
By bobny1 on 1/19/2009 4:14:54 PM , Rating: 1
He is right!. I just hit the floor, now is going to basement.


Blame everyone else.....
By nismotigerwvu on 1/19/2009 1:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that they lost money last year couldn't have ANYTHING to do with the outcome of the price fixing ordeal. As always in business, blame the other guy. At least in this case, the recession is decent fall guy. It almost feels like karma though, a few rough years for someone caught inflating their own prices is a nice equalizer.




42" LG
By obiwankenobi on 1/19/2009 7:50:21 PM , Rating: 2
i bought a 42" LG 42LG30 720p for US$699.95 free shipping and no tax @ vanns.com last november.




LG in Apple products...
By crystal clear on 1/20/2009 2:28:06 AM , Rating: 2

According to an Associated Press report, LG Display Co revealed in a regulatory filing that it has entered into a five-year contract to supply flat panels to Apple. The deal commences this month with LG receiving an $500 million payment from Apple this month. Though Apple has sourced displays from LG before, the last similar deal Apple made was with Samsung years ago as it shifted from CRTs to LCDs.

Apple's new 24" LED Cinema Display uses an LG-made H-IPS flat panel, an improved version of the In Plane Switching-type panels that tend to be preferred by professionals for wider viewing angles and color reproduction accuracy. The H-IPS technology uses a redesigned electrode which allows tighter pixel packing, resulting in less light leakage and improved contrast.

No other details are available regarding the deal, but it is likely that Apple will be sourcing similar panels from LG for additional LED Cinema Display models. Apple cites a 60 percent larger color gamut for the new 17" MacBook Pro, so it is possible that Apple is using an H-IPS panel in its flagship notebook as well. The $500 million advance payment is likely to ensure manufacturing capacity to meet Apple's demand for the H-IPS panels.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2009/01/...




"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki