[xyzzy21]

Fun fact: OLEDs have radically shorter lifespans "in the field" than LED or LCD.

According to a paper from Samsung at IEEE IRPS three years ago, the best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours) best case continuous use but that is extended by "screen savers" and estimates of only 25%-50% customer use in a 24 hour period to about 5 years (extend by not using)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8720529

Part of the reason for this: low energy manufacturing materials/processes, by definition (physics), will have low energy failure mechanisms (which always means they will fail more quickly). This is about chemico-physical reaction activation energy. Anything ink-jet created or organic is a low energy process/material.

[NikolaNovak]

>>best OLED screens only have about 2 years (600 hours) best case continuous use

I don't have access to paper, but rough estimate is that there are ~17k hours in 2 years.

If screen has actually 2 years 24x7 continuous use (and I assume they use a semi-arbitrary brightness threshold or something?), I imagine for TVs that'll be an easy decade of real-world use, depending on usage patterns. For some phones maybe less. I'd be curious what the specs for LCD & LED are then.

[Wowfunhappy]

Surely it’s not that low? The lamp in my projector (BenQ W1070) is rated for 5,000 hours, and that’s low enough that the manufacturer includes a lamp timer in the menu and sells user-swappable replacements. I’m on my third lamp.

If the whole display was expected to die in anything like this amount of time, I would anticipate widespread consumer outrage.

[phkahler]

>> low energy manufacturing materials/processes, by definition (physics), will have low energy failure mechanisms

That is one of the most obvious-in-hindsight things I've learned lately. Thanks!