TorTorden wrote: That's just one of the burnout problems and what LG admits to. What they do not admit too is the fact the light emitting parts of these Oled pixels litterally burn out and will be permanently damaged. Only way to fix a burned out pixel is to swap the entire panel.
Ummm, that's a different issue. That's literally a design failure and/or involves low-yield issue whereby sold defective units.
OLED has memory. The problem is when they don't handle it correctly, and it runs the cell, which should never, ever happen on a mass number of pixels. If the design is flawed and/or they had so many panels fail tests (again low yield), and they sold them to consumers any way, that's on Samsung.
And yes, of course, the whole panel has to be replaced. That's no different than any "matrix" solution, like any LCD for that matter.
Again, the idea of "memory" is just inherent to OLED, like it is to Nickel-based battery technologies. Everything is a balance. I mean, we moved from Nickel to Lithium to get away from not only the "memory" issue, but the necessary current improvements, at the cost of safety, because Nickel only melts while Lithium totally combusts. We put regulatory logic in Lithium designs to mitigate the risk.
The same has to be done with OLED to mitigate the risk of the memory causing issues. We like OLED over backlit (LED or otherwise) LCD, because of so many advantages (too many to list). If Samsung sold something that was not design mitigated and/or had poor yields but they shipped those bad yields anyway, that's totally on them. Doesn't mean the technology is flawed. It means Samsung engineering (or business) was.
As I always joked, when someone said they should "Make the Shuttle Safe!"
If you want a completely risk mitigated Shuttle Transport System (STS), it'll never be launched, much more it will never make it to the pad and actually be fueled! Everything is about mitigating risk.
