Source: Where I work is tooling up to start producing uLED products for SLA 3D printing. UV uLED + LCD filter all in one. I'm having to teach them how to utilize LIFT.
Intel Optane is barely faster than flash — roughly 3x (for 4k random read) compared to the fastest Samsung SSD [1].
Optane was a failure because it failed to deliver the promised result. Intel would have never poured money into a new technology only three times faster than an existing technology. I recall initial promises were RAM-like speeds.
If Apple is able to spit out 200 million of these screens in a year, I have a very hard time imagining what ingredient could go into the production causing a greater per unit price than a Samsung display.
... and the maximum brightness advantage of micro LEDs may be similarly (un)impressive.
> Optane was a failure because it failed to deliver the promised result.
No, it only failed because the performance/price ratio wasn't good enough compared to NAND flash. That's exactly what I was saying: Both performance and price have to be considered.
> If Apple is able to spit out 200 million of these screens in a year, I have a very hard time imagining what ingredient could go into the production causing a greater per unit price than a Samsung display.
Replace "Apple" with "Intel", "screens" with "Optane disks" and "Samsung Display" with "Samsung Semiconductor", and you see that this argument doesn't work.
There's something incredibly realistic about highlights being super bright, I think it's going to look more like a window than a TV.
Compare that to Intel's Optane, the elusive PCM memory technology which finally arrived to take out NAND Flash. Sure, it was faster than Flash, but it was also massively more expensive. It wasn't worth it for most people. So Intel recently discontinued it.
The same could happen for Micro LEDs. It isn't clear whether their quality advantage over OLED is worth a much higher price. Their main advantage over OLEDs (higher max brightness) doesn't seem too relevant anyway.