1440p... at 15 frames per second at most. Seriously, the PS3 is not THAT powerful.

 no it could do it at 30fps stable for PSN titles only... like 10fps unstable for games on Blu-ray (retail)

^I'm basing that on the fact that KZ2 runs at 30 frames with half the resolution ;)

I blame the puny 128 bit memory interface.

 While not a TV directly, Dell's 30" monitors (2560x1600) are only US$1,200. The reason their 4k+ tvs are so expensive isn't because they are LCDs/Plasmas, but because there is almost no demand for them (how many consumer devices support resolutions above 1080p?)

 In regards to consoles doing it, this generation isn't really geared for it. Sure there will be simpler games which can 'push the limits', but the graphically impressive titles (which are where you'd notice/want the extra res anyway) are rarely above 720p.

 Usually when resolution is given as a single number it's the height and to get the width you multiply by 16/9.  1440p would be 2560x1440.  Widescreen PC monitors are generally 16:10, and as Katilian mentioned 2560x1600 has been available for some time.

 Btw, why are we even discussing an article from October of 2006?

 Well my PC plays it at 2560x1600 :p (30" Dell)

But anyway, while this is cool, it will be many years before the US sees 1440p TV's. 

 I am so pumped about OLEDs. The tech has the potential to be the cheapest TV solution on the market.

Thing is, I'm not touching it until they push the lifespan to at least 50k hrs. 

 Sony's wouldnt be out if it didnt last longer then that

 well the TV can produce 4 separate screens that is 1080p each, imagine multiplayer split screen, each split being 1080p. 

I hope you guys realize this news is 2 years old....