Gizmodo57%

The Future of OLED Screens May Be... Inkjet Printing? 81%

By Kyle Barr73%

7/17/2026, 8:15:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 41.5% saturation with 209 hits. Analysis detected 1,419 faulty-reasoning hits from 504 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.9% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,356 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.10% of the article peer group.

Contrast-rich OLED displays sure are pretty, but they’re also still too pricey. 
TCL may have the remedy we’ve been waiting for—a new, cheaper way to make OLED screens for laptops thanks to “inkjet printing.” 
No, it’s not like your at-home paper printer… Okay, it’s kind of like your printer. 
On Thursday, TCL CSOT shared details of a new China-exclusive laptop, the Lenovo Legion R9000P, complete with a 16-inch OLED display made by TCL’s touted “IJP”—aka inkjet printing—manufacturing process. 
The laptop screen supposedly hits a max 240Hz refresh rate, though neither company is sharing much else about the laptop specs. 
Lenovo sells several different Legion R9000 laptops in the Asian market. 
All that matters is the screen, or, really, how TCL helped make the display. 
Organic light-emitting diode displays make use of thousands of individual self-emissive lights that can display red, green, and blue colors. 
Most OLEDs are constructed using a vacuum thermal evaporation process that relied on so-called fine metal masks (FMM) to pattern the organic substrates. 
It’s a complicated and often wasteful process that requires specialized factories to make these screens. 
TCL said that using inkjet printing is more efficient and lower-cost since it doesn’t use an FMM or waste as much material. 
We may see more than just laptops sporting IJP OLED. 
This week, fellow laptop maker MSI showcased its MSI PRO MAX OLED 271UPJW12 monitor. 
It’s a 27-inch, 4K screen that hits all the notes you expect, including a 120Hz refresh rate and RGB stripe technology (which reduces fuzziness around text) and promises a 1,000 nits peak brightness in HDR (300 nits typical, though). 
It would be one of the first commercial-end monitors made using IJP. 
There’s still a Reddit thread showcasing the monitor, though MSI inexplicably took down the product page. 
Hopefully, it won’t be too long since we see this monitor or the Lenovo laptop for ourselves. 
TCL has been proclaiming the inkjet-printing OLED future for years now. 
Hell, we’ve known about this method of OLED manufacturing for more than a decade. 
Back in 2023, the China-based screen maker showcased a folding TV-sized OLED screen made using inkjet printing. 
In 2024, TCL claimed it finally managed a “breakthrough” in inkjet OLED manufacturing, promising better image quality and overall OLED lifespan. 
TCL is known mostly for its relatively affordable TVs, so much so that it claims around a 14% market share in the TV space, according to Counterpoint Research. 
The brand relies on LCD and mini LED screens for the vast majority of its televisions. 
Pushing a new blend of OLED, one made by TCL, would finally let the TV maker stretch its wings and compete against the likes of Samsung and LG for smaller screens. 
Eventually, TCL may even try to push cheaper OLED TVs. 
In a time where every other laptop component is getting way too expensive, at least we can agree that cheaper OLED displays will be one spot of good news in a tapestry of dire tidings. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Kyle Barr: 8.9%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 2.4%Kyle Barr: 5.9%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias2.4%This article: 7.1%Kyle Barr: 5.6%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 1.1%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Kyle Barr: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias2.8%This article: 5.8%Kyle Barr: 5.9%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect5.8%This article: 6.9%Kyle Barr: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion6.9%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 1.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 23.4%Kyle Barr: 8.6%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias23.4%This article: 6.9%Kyle Barr: 4.6%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 20.4%Kyle Barr: 10.2%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Kyle Barr: 2.7%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect16.1%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Kyle Barr: 4.1%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.3%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.8%Kyle Barr: 4.6%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority26.8%This article: 8.9%Kyle Barr: 3.4%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma8.9%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.1%Kyle Barr: 11.8%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization13.1%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.8%Kyle Barr: 6.3%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion21.8%This article: 4.2%Kyle Barr: 0.6%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 4.4%Kyle Barr: 2.0%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.4%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.2%Kyle Barr: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division3.2%This article: 6.5%Kyle Barr: 4.1%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.0%Kyle Barr: 1.9%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.8%Kyle Barr: 3.2%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote19.8%This article: 0.4%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.4%This article: 41.5%Kyle Barr: 28.6%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice41.5%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 1.7%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kyle Barr: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Kyle Barr: 5.6%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.3%

504 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers14%attributed speech432writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageTCL CSOT • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageTCL • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTCL • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

TCL

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words60% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%TCL: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-48.4 ptsWriter: 48.4%TCL: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -21.3 ptsWriter: 21.3%TCL: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.5 ptsWriter: 0.5%TCL: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.