Print 65 comment(s) - last by Cincybeck.. on Jan 9 at 3:51 AM

  (Source: LG Electronics)
South Korean firm beats Samsung to market, fulfills long-standing promise

With a five-figure price point, LG Electronics, Inc.'s (KSC:066570) latest television set is a bold gamble, testing whether a recovering consumer electronics market is willing to pay an extreme premium for the best technology.

I. Meet the First Big OLED TV

LG has enjoyed a relatively good track record in the LCD television market and looks to leverage its reputation for reliability with a $10,300 USD 55-inch organic light-emitting diode (OLED) set, which just went on sale this week.

The new set is a mere 4 millimeters thin and features LG's new SmartTV technology and on-board Wi-Fi.  A "Magic Remote" is included with purchase.

The release marks the realization of a long standing promise -- Samsung and LG had been showing off OLED prototypes at trade shows since at least 2008.

The move is somewhat of a surprise given the unicorn-like status of commercially available large OLED TV sets in recent years.  For example, Toshiba Corp. (TYO:6502) had vowed in 2009 to release a 30+ inch OLED model, only to abruptly bail on the launch and OLED efforts in general.

OLED TVs are more power efficient than traditional LCD TVs, but that's somewhat a moot point given that they cost nearly twice as much as their LCD brethren.  More relevantly, OLED sets feature much more vivid and accurate color reproduction than LCD models.  For consumers obsessed with picture quality, OLEDs deliver a clear edge over their less expensive predecessors.

But some are not convinced that the advantage will be enough to convince consumers to pony up $10.3K for the LG set.  Comments Seo Won Seok, an analyst at Korea Investment & Securities in Seoul, to Bloomberg, "The key issue here is how LG could possibly narrow the price gap between the new OLED TVs and the conventional LCD TVs.  The price for OLED TVs should come down to about $5,000 to $7,000 to open up the initial market, which is expected about late this year at the earliest."

II. LG Gets a Head Start

For better or worse, LG seems committed to testing the waters and Samsung will likely follow close behind.  Samsung had previously committed to selling OLED sets before the end of 2012, but on Dec. 21 backed off those claims, punting its launch to sometime in 2013.  Samsung cited weak demand and high prices as reasons for the delay.

LG shares rose on the launch of the OLED model.  Despite skepticism regarding sales in the short term, investors appear to view LG's head-start on Samsung in this growing sector as a good thing.  Market research firm IHS Inc.'s (IHS) ISuppli unit labels the OLED sector as the fasting growing part of the $100B USD TV industry.  It predicts that sales will rise from 34,000 units in 2012 to 2.1m units by 2015.  Given continued process improvements OLED panels are predicted by some analysts to be cheaper than LCD units by 2016.

OLED TV shipments
OLED TV shipments are predicted to rise to to 2.1m units in 2015. [Image Source: iSuppli]

In an email LG boasted to Bloomberg, "LG is prepared to ramp up quickly to take the lead in the OLED segment."

Samsung TV
LG's new set gives it a head start on rival Samsung Display [Image Source: Flickr]
Sony Corp. (TYO:6758) was the first to sell an OLED TV debuting the 11-inch XEL-1 in Japan for roughly $2,000 USD back in 2007.  Sold exclusively in Japan and at low volume, the tiny, expensive set was viewed as somewhat of a flop.  Sony eventually pulled the plug on XEL-1 sales in 2010.  Regardless, Sony continued to pour money into its OLED offerings.

Struggling with profitability, Sony latest move was to partner with domestic display rival Panasonic Corp. (TYO:6752).  The pair will look to produce technology for new OLED display sets to be launched sometime in 2013 or 2014.

Sources: LG Electronics, Bloomberg

Comments     Threshold

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

Fit it
By JEEPMON on 1/2/2013 2:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is it me or does it seam like these tv's are so light and thin they are fragile?

RE: Fit it
By MadMan007 on 1/2/2013 3:40:21 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, word on the street is it's thickness that matters.

RE: Fit it
By vol7ron on 1/2/2013 6:28:00 PM , Rating: 1
I thought the problem with OLED is that they didn't have a long life. Something like less than 5 years before they supposedly went bad, for many it was 2-3.

RE: Fit it
By BillyBatson on 1/2/2013 7:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
MadMan was being sarcastic....
OLED life spans on mobile devices seem to be doing pretty well. Not sure if size affects life span

RE: Fit it
By MadMan007 on 1/2/2013 8:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not sarcastic...dirty-minded.

RE: Fit it
By DJ Brandon on 1/2/2013 11:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
LMFAO! Ahole! I just spit out my water!

RE: Fit it
By ipay on 1/3/2013 12:41:40 AM , Rating: 2
I may not hit the bottom, but I'll ef the sides out!

RE: Fit it
By Dr of crap on 1/2/13, Rating: -1
RE: Fit it
By Assimilator87 on 1/2/2013 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
Another trend I'm seeing is the lack of VESA compliant mounting in pursuit of thinness, at least in the monitor market.

RE: Fit it
By BillyBatson on 1/2/2013 7:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yes we do. The thinner and lighter a TV is the nicer it will look hanging on a wall which is where all my TV's go and once on the wall no one ever touches the TV again everything is controlled by these newfangled devices called remote controllers or "clickers". The TV could be made of of paper and I would prefer it imagine how nice that would look on a wall! No one wrestles in my house so no fear of anyone bumping into any of my TV's. Just have it delivered to your house so you don't take responsibility if it breaks during shipping.
If you need a TV that you can take room to room you probably won't be buying a 55" any way so a thick traditional LCD would work best for you. An absurdly high percentage of people never touch their televisions especially once on the wall. What on earth are you talking about its own weight hanging over years? So the lighter it is the more damage it can do to itself on the wall? You're thinking of the opposite lol th heavier a TV is the more stress it puts on the wall studs, the TV wall mount, and on the VESA bolts. The lighter it is the safer it is. Simple physics.

RE: Fit it
By Argon18 on 1/2/2013 4:27:47 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about fragile, but what's the point of the thinness? Look at the stand it's sitting on - still several inches deep. It has to be, or it wouldn't balance, it would fall over. So what difference does it make, if the panel is 1/4" thick, or 1" thick or 2" thick? You won't ever see the difference sitting on your couch. Why pay a premium for unneeded thinness?

The only advantage to thin would be hanging it on a wall. But then again, to wall hang, you need a VESA mount, and if the mount is thicker than the TV, then what's the point of the thin TV?

Seems like thin for its own sake, rather than for any practical purpose.

RE: Fit it
By hubb1e on 1/2/2013 6:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need a VESA mount to hang a picture on the wall do you? These sets will be thin enough to hang like a picture on the wall. And OLED is inherently flexible so don't worry too much about stiffness.

RE: Fit it
By mcnabney on 1/3/2013 10:16:19 AM , Rating: 3
The electronic circuit boards in these things AREN'T flexible. There is a reason that displays have rigid frames solidly attached to their VESA mounts.

RE: Fit it
By messele on 1/7/2013 3:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
What, so like a picture you are supposed to screw an eyelet into the back of your TV where the screw thread is longer than 4mm. That'll look great sticking through the front of the screen...

Silliest thing I've read today and that took some beating.

Some sort of mount is essential and the lack of one is a real handicap. It looks as though all the electronics are fitted in the base so that wont even be removable...

RE: Fit it
By Cincybeck on 1/9/2013 2:35:30 AM , Rating: 2
I apologize for my rudeness, but I don't think I ever read so many.. idiotic.? narrow minded.? past thinking.? post on Dailytech before. Honestly, I'm not even sure what to call these post.

Yes they're making OLED tv's thin, why? because they can. The same way they have showed off OLED displays printed on thin flexible plastic substrates, that can be bent and hit with a hammer without damage.
(Search Youtube for, 'SAMSUNG Flexible AMOLED Display - Hammer Test')

Open your minds, stop looking at what you know, and start imagining what is possible. VESA? a thing of the past, meant for bulky, heavy, LCD TVs (Did you ever think those adjectives would be used to describe LCDs?) New, smaller, more innovative mounting solutions will be thought of, and used.

Oh and you might want to search for Transparent OLED displays while you're at it, because that is possible with this tech as well.

RE: Fit it
By Cincybeck on 1/9/2013 3:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I think your post is the silliest. Who screws an eyelet into a picture frame let alone a TV? I think most of the world puts a screw or nail into the wall, and uses the built in hook on the frame to secure it to the wall. At 22Lbs it is definitely feasible with drywall anchors(Even a single EZ Ancor supports up to 50lbs)that you could mount this TV like a picture.

Oh, and not sure if it still holds true but this was reported on NBC's website back in July.
"The TV will be available in three mounting versions: table top, wall mount and pole mount. Each configuration incorporates the same OLED panel but a uses a different case. The inputs and drive electronics are located within the stand on the table top model (see photo) and features a transparent arm between the base and panel. The wall mount version and pole mount models will have a separate box that houses the electronics."

RE: Fit it
By Cincybeck on 1/9/2013 2:58:48 AM , Rating: 2
You're not paying a premium for a thin TV. If you bought one today the "extra" cost is used by the company to recuperate their R&D costs. You are paying for a new display technology that surpasses every other display technology in almost all aspects..

We're talking better contrast ratio(million to one STATIC not dynamic), the ability to display true black, better color reproduction, and a wider color gamut then any other tech, virtually no viewing angle limitations, and sub-millisecond response times.

And as far as the VESA mount look at my post below.

RE: Fit it
By hankw on 1/2/2013 4:56:40 PM , Rating: 1
Seems like a bit cheating though. They've stuffed a big chunk of the tv into the base/stand in order to achieve that thinest. You could achieve quite a thin display with LCD as well if they did the same thing.

RE: Fit it
By MadMan007 on 1/2/2013 8:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. All the connectors are on the base so electronics are too, probably the power supply as well. Pretty 'meh' especially if it means no wall-mounting.

RE: Fit it
By zephyrprime on 1/2/2013 5:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't really matter for oled since it is flexible anyway. Even a non-flexible version of oled is probably flexible as a sheet of thing plexiglass.

Lack of demand????
By Zorlac on 1/2/2013 4:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
Lack of demand because they are FREAKING $10K+ to purchase!!! lmao...I just dont understand these companies. I thought these displays were cheaper to produce than LCDs? Thats what these companies were shouting at one point at least. Why not phase out LCD into the cheap entry level/low-end midrange and phase in OLED to the high-end midrange/luxury models for a few hundred premium. They will sell like CRAZY!

I dont know anyone that would ever purchase a $10k+ display even if the economy was pre-2008. Of course I dont happen to know anyone that would be considered rich.

RE: Lack of demand????
By Argon18 on 1/2/2013 4:31:20 PM , Rating: 3
For the rich, who are the target market for a $10k television set, it doesn't matter if the TV is $5k or $10k or $15k. I know folks with $100k stereo systems at home. For them, $10k for a TV is nothing. There is a market for these things. It just isn't you or me.

RE: Lack of demand????
By hubb1e on 1/2/2013 6:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, 5K or 10K isn't really a big deal if you're dropping that much on champagne for your friends at a party. It just needs to be really good and OLED has that potential.

I'll get one when they make an 80-90" version that comes in around $6K. For now my 80" Sharp works fine but the picture quality is only average.

RE: Lack of demand????
By zephyrprime on 1/2/2013 5:06:04 PM , Rating: 5
All hd LCD and plasma tvs were $10 back around 1999. High prices are normal with new tech.

RE: Lack of demand????
By chrnochime on 1/2/2013 8:22:56 PM , Rating: 1
Don't know what you're whining about. Back in 1999 a 42" plasma was ~10k USD, and a 32" lcd was a bargain at 7k. I know because I remember seeing them in the department store at those prices back then.

Freaking expensive? Please. This is peanuts compared to some audio equipment gear. Two speakers can easily get past 10k(even into 200k), and that's only the speakers and no pre-amp/amp etc...

RE: Lack of demand????
By RedemptionAD on 1/3/2013 10:56:57 AM , Rating: 3
$10k now, $2k in 3 years. Believe it or not, rich people spending $10k on these types of things is what makes them affordable for everyone else in the long run by subsidizing the R & D costs to more affordably mass produce these kinds of things.

RE: Lack of demand????
By Nutzo on 1/3/2013 12:21:28 PM , Rating: 3
You mean those evil, greed, rich people that we raised taxes on?

It might take longer than 3 years for the prices to come down, now that the rich will be giving thier extra money to the government instead of buying TV's like this.

specs and tradeoff
By Nortel on 1/2/2013 2:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Given the choice of either 4k or OLED, I don't know if the general public would understand the rational of paying a huge premium for these emerging technologies vs traditional LCD. A 90 inch LCD is still 2k cheaper vs this 55 inch OLED set.

In the OLED world, my concern would be panel life... I've heard 5 years and the panel wears out on its way to death too. The AMOLED cell phone screens already show issues with panel life.

RE: specs and tradeoff
By menting on 1/2/2013 2:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
it's always the early adopters that help bring the price down for the masses. And those people won't care about the panel life anyway.

RE: specs and tradeoff
By hubb1e on 1/2/2013 6:38:43 PM , Rating: 3
They do care about panel life. For many of these early adopters they have elaborate systems that takes an AV guy to set up and modify. If the panel goes dead in 5 years that means the AV guy needs to come back in and redo the whole system that might be built into a cabinet or comes down from the ceiling. That's not ok.

RE: specs and tradeoff
By Yongsta on 1/3/2013 12:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
For someone who can drop 10 G's on this, 5 years down the line they will already have a new upgrade built as that will be a drop in the bucket.

RE: specs and tradeoff
By ipay on 1/6/2013 10:04:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes they will drop 10K on this to be "The Wheel", El Importante.

But when it comes to paying the "AV Guy", a "Professional Calibrator" they want to pay cheap, and not often; to obtain results that they are unable to distigush from a Expert Calibration (thus driving the need to pay cheap for "work" but not "material things").

OTOH it is up to the Manufacturers to introduce NEW Technology to force the Rich to "Keep up with the Joneses" and maintain Status, and force US (the Common Masses) to upgrade our now aging technology.

It is up to the Joneses to confront The Wheel about their Calibration, when they show off their new baby, and explain that they threw out their money on substandard work; that the Joneses purported 'substandard' Set, with superior Calibration, still bests them.

It then becomes a three way Race (that we, the 4th Person, will win) between the Manufacturer to make better and more efficiently (bigger, cheaper, or both), El Importante to hire a better Calibrator, and the Joneses to simply wait a few months, buy the NEWest and send the 'old' one to the Kids room (or an outbuilding).

It is a new take on "The Tortoise and the Hare", us being the Tortoise and those with the big Carots (the Heirs) to pay've the way. ;)

RE: specs and tradeoff
By AnnihilatorX on 1/2/2013 4:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
Economics 101 says high price always acompanies new technology, and will eventually drop enough for mass adoption, if it is stil competitive enough by then of course.

RE: specs and tradeoff
By tng on 1/3/2013 11:34:12 AM , Rating: 2
I've heard 5 years and the panel wears out on its way to death too
For quite some time the big barrier to OLED was the material they used for the blue emmiter. Red and green were easy and had very long life to half brightness, blue was always the issue with panel life.

Be interesting to see if there is color shift on these sets after several years. It may be that they have found a new material that will last longer, or have went to a CMYK setup where they can compensate for the blue.
A 90 inch LCD is still 2k cheaper vs this 55 inch OLED set.
Yeah, seeing how you can get a 55" LCD for about $1K nowdays, it will be interesting to see how this shakes out for them.

RE: specs and tradeoff
By Strunf on 1/8/2013 5:55:37 AM , Rating: 2
5 years is at the rate of 8h a day, I think I watch like 1 or 2h of TV per day on average, so for me it would last like 20 years... on the other if it's for someone who has its TV ON 16h a day then it has a short lifespan.

So much drool
By neihrick1 on 1/2/2013 2:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
yet so much money. hopefully in a year they can make it 4k with passive 3d.

RE: So much drool
By BansheeX on 1/2/2013 6:31:36 PM , Rating: 5
I'm always amazed by how little people seem to care about all of LCD's issues. Screw 4k and 3d, these were trotted out because LCD can't improve its inherent image problems. It will always have gray blacks, crap viewing angles, backlight bleed lotteries, varying panel types that sacrifice i.e. color quality for better response time. You should visit an LCD forum and read all the threads of people endlessly trying to figure out which panel has the least problems. OLED resolves all of these shortcomings, its only problem right now is cost and somewhat shorter lifespans.

RE: So much drool
By hubb1e on 1/2/2013 6:44:01 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, how many homes, bars, etc have you been in that have their TVs set to stretch out their picture and run the burn your eyeballs display mode? They don't even realize people look fat. Do you really think they care about grey blacks and light bleed? It's only a small % of people who actually know what we are talking about and even less who actually care.

RE: So much drool
By someguy123 on 1/3/2013 10:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's more the standard that people are used to. These days everyone is used to DVD quality, so if you went to that same bar and it had some VHS quality signal stretched out people would think the image was terrible.

If OLED had the kind of marketshare that DVD does people would see it as the baseline and would probably notice washed out blacks and response time.

RE: So much drool
By tng on 1/3/2013 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
OLED resolves all of these shortcomings
Sure it does... Then there will be another whole bunch of problems that will surface with OLEDs.

I take it you are a PDP fan. I bought three LCDs for my house and have noticed some issues with them, but for the most part, I just watch TV, not grey test screens to complain about the unevenness of the backlight. Sometimes you just have to enjoy the media, not complain about the delivery system.

RE: So much drool
By messele on 1/7/2013 4:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yes indeed. When my 52" Samsung (5 years old) has a plain white screen displayed every defect in the uniformity of backlight and slight yellowing that has occurred over time is evident.

That is annoying for all of 5 seconds before I put something on that I actually want to watch as opposed to sitting their like an OCD uber-nerd taking measurements.

RE: So much drool
By Nutzo on 1/3/2013 12:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
My 32 inch CRT was so much better since it had a better viewing angle, no light bleed, and good blacks :(

Think I'll stick to my Sony LCD with it's 1080p resolution.
Even with LCD's limitations it was still a huge improvement.

By fellix on 1/3/2013 2:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
The two most pressing issues with the OLED panels are the life duarition of the blue organic diodes and manufacturing of large screens on a cheap. Now the first issue is mostly solved for what I know, but making large panels (OLEDs are literally "printed" on a substrate) is still very costly and technicaly challenging method.

By MZperX on 1/3/2013 9:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no expert but I also thought burn-in was an issue. At least I've seen display models of Samsung GS2 with the status bar icons permanently burned into the screen. Kind of like plasmas used to be...

By tng on 1/3/2013 11:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'm no expert but I also thought burn-in was an issue
Burn In is always an issue with emitting displays, just ask a plasma owner. You will have people out there that will tell you that it has been solved, but it really hasn't, even LCDs will exhibit burn in although they are much more resistant to it.

By messele on 1/7/2013 4:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly LCDs display a ghosting of a static image for a while, more evident the more contrast there was in the image. The ghosting disappears after a proportional length of time but the technology while very very good, is still not perfected.

It's really a very minor issue though.

Better speakers
By kyee7k on 1/2/2013 6:12:15 PM , Rating: 1
Instead of thinner, how about better speakers or at least get rid of the TV speakers and include a sound bar appropriate for the size.

RE: Better speakers
By chµck on 1/2/2013 6:22:45 PM , Rating: 3
If you're spending $10k on a monitor, you'd be an idiot to settle for built-in speakers.

Japan just didn't get it.
By dayanth on 1/2/2013 8:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
Go Big or Go Home. A 10" TV isn't worth watching unless it's a tablet device. I'm sure the price will drop as fast as LCD's if enough OLED Tv's are produced.

RE: Japan just didn't get it.
By tng on 1/3/2013 11:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
Go Big or Go Home
But they do get it, Sharp offers 70", 80" and 90" LCDs that have proven proformance and solid manufacturing techniques. OLED is something that despite this set, is still experimental, even the manufacturing processes are still evolving.

By Lazlo Panaflex on 1/2/2013 2:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
LG has announced that they'll be including a free year of Cinemax (aka "Skin-emax") with the purchase of this slightly overpriced TV. "We beat our competition, and you can't beat this deal. You bet your bippy!", said a spokesman under the condition of anonymity.


I would buy it.
By dark matter on 1/2/2013 5:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
However, I would simply mount the screen itself flush into the wall. Being only 4mm thick, it would be very easy.

The electronics would have to be different though, although I'm sure they would sell them outside of the retail unit. To fitters and such not.

By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 1/2/2013 6:00:54 PM , Rating: 2
Now it only needs to come down in price by about $9000.. In 2013 dollars.

(and, of course, passive 3D..)

Thin--So what?
By Dorkyman on 1/3/2013 12:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
I just do not understand the "virtue" of super-thin.

People talk of hanging their TV on the wall, like a picture. I've been to houses where we sit in the living room, craning our necks upwards to watch the movie. No thank you.

Our 62" set sits on a matching base in the corner of the living room. Very comfy height. Our set is also NOT thin, but it makes absolutely no difference; there's plenty of air behind it as it is.

By Bladen on 1/3/2013 2:42:45 AM , Rating: 2
No mention of resolution? It's highly likely that it is plain ol' full HD, but surely OLEDs could do better...

Is a little math so difficult for Daily Tech staff?
By rdhood on 1/2/13, Rating: -1
By JasonMick on 1/2/2013 2:48:11 PM , Rating: 5
Is a little math so difficult for Daily Tech staff?
No, but apparently it is for you.

Remember this is a HIGH END model, so its LCD comparison point is @ the high end of LG's lineup. A high-end Infinia LED-lit LCD set costs around $4K...

So okay, it's ~2.5x, but "twice as much" is a reasonable approximation. By contrast your:
about TEN to TWENTY times as much as their "LCD brethren".
Is simply insane math-wise, and nowhere near the mark.

Unless perhaps you were comparing a high end model to lower end LCD/LED TV offerings, in which case the error in your premise would instead lie in your choice of comparison point.

Either way, you're not only being quite rude, you're wrong.

By Argon18 on 1/2/2013 4:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Very true, a high end LCD television is not cheap! Attempting to compare this $10k OLED model to a Vizio Wal-Mart special is like comparing a new Porsche with a Honda Civic - completely different market segments.

By messele on 1/7/2013 4:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, people don't laugh at you when you're driving a Civic, for a start ;)

By OCNewbie on 1/2/2013 5:43:53 PM , Rating: 3
Give this man a 6!

By menting on 1/2/2013 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
you'll need to compare the top of the line TVs to this one to be fair, as this is definitely top of the line.
a 10-20 times as much means you are using a $500-$1000 price as comparison.
Right now, I see LG's most expensive 55" LCD TV to cost $3600, so it's almost 3X the price for a 55" OLED compared to that one.

By menting on 1/2/2013 2:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
and I was beat by about a minute with my reply...

By mcnabney on 1/3/2013 10:34:40 AM , Rating: 2
Why are you assuming this OLED display is high end?

It could be a really crappy - bottom-end version. Only rich guys get to see the $40k+ models. They let the peasants gawk at the crappy $10k OLED.

By skroh on 1/4/2013 11:18:57 AM , Rating: 2
I watched the looping demo on a Sony 10-inch OLED unit at the local Best Buy Magnolia department. Contrast, brightness, color saturation, were stunning. No visible grain to the resolution whatsoever.

To skeptics about whether the unwashed masses will appreciate the technical image quality of OLED, they will. All the store has to do is set it next to anything else, and that anything else will look like crap.

"Hmmm, Mabel, we could get this here TEE-vee (in the South, it's important to put the accent on the tee), looks kinda fuzzy, kinda muddy, kinda flat or washed out, or we could get this one here that looks like a window into liquid light. Yep, gunna go with the liquid light."

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki