> Intel Optane is barely faster than flash — roughly 3x (for 4k random read) compared to the fastest Samsung SSD [1].
... 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.
... 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.