Sony Vaio F11 Screen Discussion (Speculations allowed. Research is appreciated) | NotebookReview

There seems to be a lot of discussion about the F11's screen, so much so that it's clogging up the Vaio F11's owners lounge (which wasn't exactly a mansion to start out with) and making it hard to find anything.

Here are some of the more recent posts (within the last day or so):

roweraay said: ↑

Derrida, I will provide a full report once my screen gets fitted onto the laptop. Currently, it is sitting face-down on a micro-fiber cloth and the whole ensemble is covered up, since the laptop is currently in a disassembled state.

However, note that you are making too much ado about these things. As mentioned above, Sony has NEVER sold an F or FW-series laptop with a screen worth $1300 and you can take that to the bank. If that is the price they have listed in their spare parts list, then it is upto you whether you want to pay that inflated price or not.

Typically, manufacturers do projections on what kinds of repairs would be needed (in-warranty and out-of-warranty) when it comes to the products they sell and will stock a finite number of those "expected to require repair" components (or spare-parts). Their supplier (for instance SHARP) is not going to make those parts for perpetuity, especially after they have re-tooled for newer versions of those parts and thus the manufacturer (for instance, Sony) will buy a significant stock of those (or require that the supplier maintain a certain stock level for a certain time-frame), before they stop being produced.

So during those spares requirement projections, if they under or over "project" the demand, it is possible that they might have less (or more) inventory than the true aftermarket demand. So if there has been FAR more than projected amount of repairs against that particular screen model, then Sony's internal stocks of that particular screen may very well be depleted and may be brushing against their core safety stock.

So by raising the price of that screen-part# to an exorbitant number like $1300, they may be encouraging folks needing repairs to go with an alternate (and equally good or maybe even better) model, where stocks may be plentiful and thus can be sold for say $350. It does not mean that the "alternate" and fully-compatible model is inferior....it just means that they don't have a severe shortage of that particular screen model.

Bottomline, if they have listed an FW screen's price at $1300 - then it is either a mistake or an anomaly or they are right down to the wire as far as stock availability of that particular part is concerned and are jacking up the price to encourage people to go with the (equally good or maybe even better) alternate. You simply read that $1300 number to mean that you are getting a Titanium encased, diamond encrusted and coated with pixie dust screen.....and it is simply not true.

I am not going to make any further back-and-forth comments on this topic any more, since it is not getting us anywhere.

Click to expand...

MelodyMaster said: ↑

I don't care about matte versus glossy, though I prefer the latter, and I don't care if there are four or a dozen varieties of 16.4" screen; my only point is that getting the screen from Sony is a ripoff - and unnececessary, unless you HAVE to have that one FW screen that can only be sourced from Sony thus costing$1300.

Click to expand...

new_vaio_F said: ↑

That is what I thought too! The LED and CCFL lamp doesnt differ much in term of price, even a small netbook that cost $300 have LED!! And pretty much every new laptop make by other manufactures above 13" is LED. Couldn't really understand why SONY choose CCFL, especially knowing the battery wont hold too much charge, LED should be a bit help there.

The mic fix would prevent your F to enter sleep mode just so you know.

Click to expand...

MelodyMaster said: ↑

That's exactly what I said...multiple times. Derrida doesnt know what he's talking about.

(edit) I also wrote an extensive post about grey market distirbution, "Channel" versus "distirbution network" and the different ways a product can travel, physically and "philosophically" from the manufacturer to the end-user, but I can't find that.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6154348&postcount=3217

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6154556&postcount=3224

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=6123545&postcount=2759

Click to expand...

mangosango said: ↑

They probably chose it because of the relative lack of 16.4" LED screens. there just aren't very many laptops with that size, and simple supply-and-demand logic makes it clear that it's more profitable for companies to create LED screens for 13" netbooks (which, really are selling like hotcakes) than 16.4" LED screens. As a result, the LED screens for the F cost more, and it becomes harder for Sony to justify the price of a contract with LCD suppliers, like Sharp, when CCFL technology still produces a high-fidelity images, while still being able to be produced at a relatively inexpensive cost.

EDIT:
Sony probably also has an existing contract from the FW, so why switch? Anyhow, this screen debate has been beaten to death.

Click to expand...

Derrida said: ↑

I know you're having fun attacking me, but I have never said that Sony's prices were "justified" -- but I have said that we have evidence from To no End that his screen is less glossy than his F screen.

Has roweraay bothered to answer that question: whether his new screen and his old screen have the same coating? Nope. Much more fun to tell everyone how crazy Derrida is.

The fact is that there are two different screen numbers from Sharp for the FW490 series and one of them is nowhere to be found except from Sony.

Now who is it who is "nuts"? The persons who imply that two parts from Sharp with different Sharp part numbers are the same screen (you and we know who you are) or people like 1) To no End and 2) Derrida who have 1) seen two different coatings and 2) believe that Sony has two different Sharp screens with two different Sharp numbers, respectively.

That's what it boils down to: being castigated for daring to maintain the Sony has two different Sharp screens and that they may be different in their performance.

Wow! I should hang my head in shame.... (Not.... ;-))

Click to expand...

Derrida said: ↑

For the record, the screen Sony charges $1300 for is NOT available on the North American F: that's NOT, no, nowhere.

It's on multiple models of the FW4 series which got superb screen reviews (if people only bothered to read the posts where the links to what all of these screens look like are provided).

And the screen that Sony charges $1300 has a Sharp part number that is not on the after-market lists. Got it? That's NOT, no, nowhere.

Them's the facts. You're having a lot of fun shooting the messenger. Try dealing with the facts of the Sharp part numbers so many have been pleased to rely upon on this thread. And with the testimony of those who have SEEN two versions of the European Premium screen, who have SEEN two different types of glossy anti-reflective coating. They're nuts, you say? Fine. As the Native Americans say: Think what you want to think -- YOU have to live with your thoughts.

I think I'll stop doing all this research. Most of it is already up, anyway. And these snipes are proof that those who gripe haven't bothered to consult the links.

No problem. You're on your own! Enjoy....

Click to expand...

new_vaio_F said: ↑

Hm,are making LED and LCD screen so much different?I thought they are almost the same, only the inverter and the type of lamp that they used. With a big player like SONY, ordering thousands and thousands of 16.4" LED screen wont be any issue for any LCD manufacture especially if SONY is one of the manufacture and they have a factory together with SHARP. I think someone in upper management from SONY get super greedy and just want to cut cost and were talking minimal cut, probably $40-50/screen so they can pocket more $$ which actually doesn't turn as the plan since a lot of people complaining and returning the product. That person need to get fired, sacrifice quality doesn't always profitable.

Click to expand...

MelodyMaster said: ↑

And I said CLEARLY that that was because the screen ran out or was discontinued (because of prodcution costs? - maybe as high as $200) before the model was ended, thus there were no surplus FW490 screens left to hit the grey market... The grey market is dependant upon SURPLUS components, those that exceed contract requirements, which because of production efficiencies nearly always happens. IF this unit had entered the grey market it would be maybe $350, $400, certainly not $1300...this screen is sold from Sony at a marked-up price just like all their other screens. Why is this point so hard to get across to you??

Sony knows they have your tail in a vice, that's why they overcharge..

Click to expand...

MelodyMaster said: ↑

One point that has not yet been brought up.. I believe the three-LED RGB screens have software management of the white point, which means each LED set has to be hardware-connected to the motherboard, and also maybe the BIOS has to address the display.. This would make it incompatible with motherboards built for CCFL or WLED.

Click to expand...

Derrida said: ↑

I do not misunderstand that point; it is you who deliberately misunderstand my point: that that screen has specifc attributes which have resulted in its being considered matte, even though it has a glossy coating -- that it is different. There may be other attributes as well which differ. What is mind-boggling is the insistence on this thread by some that all 16.4" screens are basically the same, differing only in backlight (CCFL or LED) and, if the former, number of lamps.

P.S. No one has _my_ tail in a vice, not even you, MelodyMaster!

Ha!

Click to expand...

roweraay said: ↑

Yeah, the good thing is that there are very few LCD makers actually. And the additional good thing about a "non standard" size like 16.4", is that even if there were some "cloners", they would not be interested in this small a market.

Another curious thing I noticed about the new screen is that even though it is also a glossy screen like my F-series, it is a MUCH deeper black than the F-series screen. I guess that should prove to have FAR better contrast than the "full-hd" F-series screen.

Click to expand...

Derrida said: ↑

Well, yes, it is used in the FW490 but it is the cheaper of two LCD possibilities offered for the FW490. Sony sells this one for $349.99 and the other one for $1300 and change. And this screen for $349.99 was on the FW390 parts list as well.

So, just as we have now discovered that the EU premium exists in two versions, with different color profiles, etc., well, we now know we don't know what to think about which is the _real_ FW490 screen and which (as this one may be) a hold-over from the replacement for the FW390 screen which was discontinued.

For more details on that and other FW screens with links to German reviews with performance specs, Sony part numbers, etc., seach my posts in this thread using the parts numbers from roweraay above.

Click to expand...

roweraay said: ↑

I got to call non-sense, when I hear or read about it. There is no laptop LCD on the planet that should cost $1300. The European full-Adobe-RGB LED based LCD should sell for around $350, while the dual-CCFL type LCD (I hope Sony is not stupid enough to ask Sharp to design numerous 16.4" Full-HD Dual-CCFL lamp options) should sell for around $250. Regardless of your "spec"-ulations, Derrida, and how baseless I think they are, I personally feel there may have been a few Full-HD screen versions in the FW series........one of them called the "ECO" version and the other one called "X-brite".....the "X-brite" being the dual-CCFL lamp version.

If they charge $1300 and you do pay that price for it, all I can say is there is a sucker born every minute. An entire LAPTOP should not cost the price you quoted for the screen.....$1300, is it ?

Click to expand...

Derrida said: ↑

Hey, I don't create these facts; I just report them. And the forum member who personally saw two EU CTO F's and found that there are two different EU "premium" screen capability sets for the same OS, etc. didn't create his own screens, either.

I provided a link in an earlier post to Sony's definitions of Eco and FullHD and X-Brite from the now-defunct Backstage Website. X-Brite Eco was different from X-Brite FullHD in the resolution, Eco at 1600x900 and FullHD full HD (with some likely additional proprietary screen technology distinguishing the two -- recall that AUO made the ECOs and Sharp the FullHDs). X-Brite was advertized as the coating only.

Further, as for the $1300 screen (plug in VGN-FW490 yourself at https://servicesales.sel.sony.com/ecom/accessories/web/index.jsp), I never said that I or anyone would pay that amount to Sony for it -- but it is so listed with the Sony and Sharp part number LP164WD1-TLA1(F)(S) on multiple FW4 series models at the official Sony site that Joe Bleau provided us. Again, I don't make these things up: I spend a great deal of time researching them and then provide the links to the official Sony Websites for forum members to consult.

Now we have the testimony of To no End that the coating on his FW490 dual-lamp FullHD is very different from the coating on the F screen. And he is not alone in reporting that; others have so noted at the FW threads. If the coating on your screen part referenced in your posting is identical to the coating on your F screen, then it is likely that To no End has the different, more expensive Sharp model of the FullHD size screen. We won't know unless he opens it up and reports the Sharp model number (which I am not recommending, of course, since there are warranty implications for the first 90 days on a refurb purchase).

Not consulting the links and simply assuming that I have made all of this up, rather than distinguishing between what is documented and what is true "spec"-ulation simply wastes your time as well as mine and that of other forum members. If we expect Newbies to do a thread search first, surely advanced forum members can grant each other the same courtesy before "shooting the messenger."

So, tell us: Is the coating on the two screens you have in your possession identical? That's a fact we all want to have!

Click to expand...

OoTLink said: ↑

Sony doesn't sell the LCDs at $1300 because they genuinely cost $1300 to make, that assertion is absurd. Those LCDs are worth no more than $300, and if they cost a dime more Sony would charge a fortune for the F series. Think about it, it's one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest i7 720qm laptops out there. Everything about it, was done to cut costs.

I doubt they'd do all that cost cutting to stick a $500+ LCD in there.

Besides, it's a crappy TN panel like most laptops have. TN panels are cheap as hell to make, partially because the process is cheap and partially because they have much fewer rejects.

If Sony had instead used a PVA or IPS panel, I could see it costing $500, and even then i doubt this because most quality IPS panels cost under $1000, in some cases well under that figure these days. Dell and Mitsubishi even make a few in the $200-300 range now.

While I agree that the panels sold on 3rd party sites are likely surplus, they are most likely either just as good, or better than the ones that came with our machines. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony took a lot of rejects to come up with a bigger profit margin and passed the "savings" on to you (literally).

Click to expand...

roweraay said: ↑

Derrida, to be quite honest, I am just getting a bit tired of all this prattle. If $1300 is what Sony believes they can get away with, that is what they will charge for it. It does not mean it is worth anywhere close to as much.

As someone who works in a premier diversified industrial, I know that our spares and aftermarket side of the business are the biggest money-makers in terms of sheer margins for us. The OEM part# that is installed onto the brand-new unit, costs $300 (as charged by the supplier). The charge to the customer, when the EXACT same part# is sold as a spare, is $6000+ - believe it or not !

That does not mean that the $6000 part# is encased in Titanium and studded with a diamond or two.....it is the price that we can charge with a straight face and is the EXACT same $300 part# that is installed into our finished unit, when it is sold to the end customer. Of course if the customer is smart enough, they will realize that the part# is made by a 3rd party supplier (from whom we source the parts from) and they can in turn get it for $400 from them.....the EXACT same part# that we charge $6000+ as a spare-part. And believe me, we are not an outlier when it comes to such a practice.....this is pretty much an industry-wide phenomenon.

It is for this very same reason, that manufacturers at times sell brand-new products at a low margin or even at a loss. The intent being to get as much of their products into the market as "installed base". There will be a payback time, when spares will need to be sold and the moolah will be raked in !

Bottomline, these LCD screens whether single-lamp-CCFL or dual-lamp-CCFL or LED-based, have price differences within $150 of each other. Don't get too carried away by some knick-knack that is present in one screen and unavailable in the other. Sony, in case of the F-series in the NA market, has consciously decided to save a few bucks by going with as cheap a Full-HD screen as SHARP could design. By spending an additional $25, they could very well have bought the European full-HD screen to the NA market but they made a conscious/business decision not to do so.

Click to expand...

So have at it folks. Everybody seems to have a lot to say about this screen.

Sony Vaio F11 Screen Discussion (Speculations allowed. Research is appreciated).

mangosango Notebook Evangelist

Glashub Notebook Evangelist