Alright I have come to accept the fact that OLED won't reach large sizes for atleast 15 years. There have been absolutely hardly ANY progress for years. Sony stopping selling OLED in Japan, probably US also, in the future, shows how this tech is not catching on.

I am not paying attention to this tech anymore, I am tired of year to year- 0 progress.

I wouldn't say that. Maybe delayed due to japan earthquake but not indefinite (or 15 years) in the bigger scheme of things. This just out:

SAMSUNG MOBILE DISPLAY RIGHTS ISSUE

* SEC & SAMSUNG SDI to participate W1.7tn & W300bn respectively for SMD w3.4tn rights issue @ W71,881/shr.
- SEC & SDI may participate further w1.4tn in 2H11
- SEC will now have 64%, SDI 36% vs previous 50:50.

"AMOLED TV displays will leap-frog to 55” from 32” while LCD TVs has patiently made its way from the 20” levels throughout to 50”. SMD and LGD are both preparing for 8G fabs to produce large AMOLED panels used for TVs. An 8G glass substrate is the most efficient size for 32” and 55” panel production. Although their 8G fabs will adopt different technologies, the size of TV panels should be the same at 32” and 55” to make the best use of glass substrate input and increase productivity at the initial stage." -Korea Investment & Securities 21 Mar 2011

While I've been a pretty big skeptic of large-size OLED TVs and nothing that has come to market or been announced a product changes that, I am little more sanguine than "it's still 15 years away". That said, it has been "5 years away" for about a decade.

I've been especially skeptical of the endless claims from proponents that it will be "cheaper to produce than LCD". That claim was very questionable in 2005 and seems pretty ridiculous in 2011. LCD pricing has seen something like a 30% annual cost-reduction curve on the production -- and retail -- side. While LCD production costs are bottoming out (unfortunately), the notion that OLED is going to somehow be cheaper than something that is both mature (the first TFTs date to the 1980s, the first full-color ones to the early/mid 1990s) and manufactured in the billion+ unit-per-year range is quite honestly ridiculous.

There is no precedent I can think of where some replacement technology comes along and is by virtue of its immature production processes and smaller volumes cheaper to make. I'm sure there are examples of technologies that get a lot cheaper over time -- for example rotating magnetic storage, multiple kinds of memory -- but it'd be interesting to identify those that don't benefit from Moore's Law-type effects or the benefits of automation coming to non-automated processes. My guess is the examples list would be short.

By definition, OLED TVs of similar size are of similar size, so glass, backplanes, power, logistics are all going to approximate the cost of LCDs. What it comes down to is that somehow, producing pixels -- the physical manifestation of them -- would need to be cheaper than doing so for LCD. And it appears that despite the amazing complexity of LCD televisions, the cost of producing pixels is approaching zero. (I don't literally mean zero, but if you include the color filters, the backlight, the LCD material, and the transistor backplane, et. al, you are talking something that even on a 60-inch set is vanishingly small, and with the cost of producing LEDs falling rapidly and their power efficiency rising, it's getting that much smaller).

The hope around OLED being cheaper is based on it being, therefore, so much inherently less complex to manufacture that a generation's worth of learning-curve effects, process improvements, etc. can be superseded in some shorter period of time, say the 5 years from 2013-2018. During that time, something approximating 10 billion LCD screens will be produced for TVs, tablets, computers, etc. While the number of OLED screens is rising proportionally faster than LED, the number being produced is not changing by the same raw amount as LCD. (In other words, LCD is still outgrowing OLED in total units added year over year).

There has been much hype around OLED being "printed" like with an inkjet, but the reality is that making OLEDs appears to be at least as complex as making LCDs and is by no means clearly easier. Of the scores of companies that were pursuing low-cost manufacturing methods for OLED in the previous decade, many are no longer remotely involved in trying to bring it to market. In fact, early leading proponents like Sony appear to have virtually no interest in pursuing the technology and Matsushita has also shown little interest.

Basically, the future of this technology for television is in the hands of the world's two-largest LCD makers who also happen to be two of the largest plasma makers. It strains the imagination to believe OLED will be anything more than a premium-priced TV product for the foreseeable future. It's also hard to imagine a $5000 32-inch TV to attract more than single-digit 1000 sales globally.

While I am well aware of the growth of OLED in the smartphone market, I am not convinced most people are seeing it as dramatically outperforming LCD. And the world's driving force for thinness, power consumption, etc. in mobile (Apple) has yet to tip its market driving power toward OLED, while doing insanely cool things with LCD. (Pick up an iPad2, marvel at its thinness, boggle as the fact that most of the height is the enclosure and the battery, not the screen).

While I am well aware of the growth of OLED in the smartphone market, I am not convinced most people are seeing it as dramatically outperforming LCD. And the world's driving force for thinness, power consumption, etc. in mobile (Apple) has yet to tip its market driving power toward OLED, while doing insanely cool things with LCD. (Pick up an iPad2, marvel at its thinness, boggle as the fact that most of the height is the enclosure and the battery, not the screen).

Agreed on just about everything in your post.

I will also add that when Samsung (leading supplier of mobile OLEDs) built their 7" tablet they went LCD and indicated that LCD was better for power consumption. Also I am always reading about supply issues for mobile OLED screens, which clearly points to manufacturing issues and that is on tiny screens.

I think we are finally reaching the point where OLEDs might really be 5 years in our TV future(50"+ under $10000), but I expect it will be 10-15 years till they undercut LCD. LCD is mature and most of the patents are expiring, OLED is new, and patents on the OLED chemistry will be a minefield.

The fact that they jumped generations straight to 8G should indicate somewhat about their strategy. They do not think OLED is competitive in the highly commoditised 11-30" PC space. However the corollary is also true that it will be competitive in the TV space for the perceived value in PQ and aesthetic improvements, especially in the premium space as rogo indicated, even if it may very well never be cheaper than LCD TV.

But just as it is possible to ship 10m >60" TV ie 5% market eventually, IMHO it is also likely that 10m OLED TV is not far fetch. Which is also why I don't think there is no room for plasma to exist in the next 10 years. The assumption of winner takes all is probably incorrect in the medium term.

PS on Apple using LCD, it is not a question of whether it thinks LCD with retina resolution is superior. It is a question of whether it has a choice in the first place.

Korea gets momentum in AM-OLED
By Kim Yoo-chul

Korean companies may have secured momentum in their bid for leadership in the active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AM OLED) sector of the premium flat-panel industry as a crucial patent in the industry has been invalidated. 

Universal Display Corporation (UDC) of the United States recently lost a lawsuit in Japan regarding a key material used for such panels. 

Princeton University and the University of Southern California initially filed a patent on phosphorescent materials that was accepted in the United States, while UDC earned the right to charge royalties on licensees. 

The patent at issue has been a stumbling block for Korean AM OLED manufacturers such as Samsung Mobile Display and LG Display in their attempts to preempt the global market. 

Phosphorescent materials help enhance the brightness of such panels as well as offering savings in energy consumption, although they are somewhat pricey compared to conventional fluorescent materials. 

It is not known whether UDC will try to overturn the ruling as UDC representatives in Korea were not available for comment. If they accept it, Korea will not have to pay royalties for using the “unpatented” materials. 

The ruling in the Japanese court is significant because the trade and use of the phosphorescent materials take place mostly in Japan, experts pointed out. 

``The situation is becoming favorable for Korea’s AM OLED makers and related materials suppliers thanks to the court decision,’’ a top-ranking industry executive said Sunday while asking not to be named. 

When contacted, both Samsung Mobile Display and LG Display refused to comment on the issues. 

Samsung Mobile Display is currently the leader in the global OLED market, followed by LG Display. The former, which was set up through collaboration of Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI, is struggling to meet demand for AM OLED panels for use in advanced products such as handsets and tablet PCs.

AM OLED is considered the next-generation flat screen _ touted as far better than today’s norm of liquid crystal displays.

The use of the panels, however, is currently limited to smaller-sized devices such as smartphones and tablets due to the higher cost and technology-related matters.

Samsung Electronics, which is the runner-up to Nokia in the handset industry, is a strong backer of AM OLED panels as it uses the screens in its strategic Galaxy S smartphones, and plans to introduce an AM OLED Galaxy Tab, very soon.

It doesnt sound like the issues in Japan have had much of an impact on OLED material supplies.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110322PD205.html

I've been especially skeptical of the endless claims from proponents that it will be "cheaper to produce than LCD".

JMO, but I dont think that the relevant question is whether OLED's will be cheaper than LCD's, but rather whether they can at least approach LCD prices. The Gen 4.5 OLED fab has allowed Samsung to do precisely that with mobile displays and the result is supply shortages.

My understanding is that Samsung is using basically the same manufacturing processes for their Gen 5.5 fab as their Gen 4.5 fab. If they can then duplicate the yields, it would seem likely that we should see prices drop to within range of LCD's for even larger sizes. If they can manage to do that, the Gen 8 fab and TV sized displays would be next. It will likely take longer to bring the yields up on the Gen 8 fab since the manufacturing process is likely to be different but the principle is the same.

During that time, something approximating 10 billion LCD screens will be produced for TVs, tablets, computers, etc. While the number of OLED screens is rising proportionally faster than LED, the number being produced is not changing by the same raw amount as LCD. (In other words, LCD is still outgrowing OLED in total units added year over year).

You are putting the cart before the horse. Of course LCD's will outsell OLED's during that time period. The first thing we need to see is shifts in capex spending. That has happened at Samsung as they will spend the same on OLED's as they are spending on LCD's this year. LG will likely follow next year with the rest of the industry trailing. Shifts in revenue will happen next as OLED's grab the premium portion of the market. It will take a very long time (if ever) for OLED's to actually grab the unit lead. That is where OLED's would need to actually live up to the hype that you cite and deliver displays that are actually cheaper than LCD's. You are right that inkjet printing of OLED's is a long long way from happening.

Slacker

There may still be significant operational risk in ramping 8G as the technology used is incrementally different from 4.5/5.5G, according to KIS. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone following this thread.


I will also add that when Samsung (leading supplier of mobile OLEDs) built their 7" tablet they went LCD and indicated that LCD was better for power consumption. Also I am always reading about supply issues for mobile OLED screens, which clearly points to manufacturing issues and that is on tiny screens.

Not true. They had wanted to launch 7" AMOLED tablet, which is another consideration why the size was 7" instead of 9.7" like the iPad. Hence the coming galaxy tablet 2 will be 10" LCD.

The real reason was samsung galaxy s handset was selling much better than anyone expected, and capacity was used up. In fact it single handedly raised Samsung's handset operating margins back to 10%.

If 5.5G ramps on schedule we will see AMOLED samsung tablet by this Christmas.

Not true. They had wanted to launch 7" AMOLED tablet, which is another consideration why the size was 7" instead of 9.7" like the iPad. Hence the coming galaxy tablet 2 will be 10" LCD.


What is not true? Do I need to provide the quote from Samsung where they state the power consumption is lower for LCD??

Edit:
Here is a Samsung exec stating they went with LCD for price and power consumption, both of which were better with LCD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRVrvXmhIUU

I think I've sat with enough samsung exec to read critically what they do rather than what they say :) They said 7" was better than 10" just 6 months before announcing tablet 2 ie they were developing the 10" while saying straight to my face 7" is better.

Nonetheless price and power consumption are probably valid "excuse" at this point of time. However if that's REALLY their strategy and what they believe then they shouldn't bother with an AMOLED tablet.

I think I've sat with enough samsung exec to read critically what they do rather than what they say :) They said 7" was better than 10" just 6 months before announcing tablet 2 ie they were developing the 10" while saying straight to my face 7" is better.


Well it is nice that you are now calling Samsung execs liars instead of me. :D

That was never my intention. You believed their word. Honestly misled like WMD is not lying :) but nonetheless untrue.

Neither are the samsung exec lying per se. Like I said it is perfectly valid excuse. But they have their own constraints. Life is not so simple and straight forward.

Anyway sidetrack on this issue here's a snippet out yesterday... so which exec is "lying"?:

SEOUL, March 22 (Yonhap) -- LG Display Co. recently requested that Samsung Electronics Co. confirm news reports that one of its senior executives publicly insulted LG engineers, sources said Tuesday, raising worries that intensifying market competition between the two South Korean electronics rivals might develop into a court battle.

The move comes after Kim Hyun-suk, vice president of Samsung's digital media business, reportedly derided LG engineers by using a swear word during a meeting with reporters on March 8. The remark was made as he explained to reporters the differences in the 3-D TV technologies of the two rival companies.

"It is true that we sent the letter (to confirm the incident)," an LG Display official said. "Though we are competing with each other over 3-D TV technology standards, there are business ethics and manners that we have to observe."

Samsung and LG Electronics Inc, the world's No. 1 and No. 2 flat-panel TV makers, have been engaged in a war of words over whose 3-D TV technology is more advanced. LG Display supplies display panels to LG Electronics.

The battle flared up further after LG Electronics unveiled a new 3-D TV lineup last month using the film-type patterned retarder technology, claiming that its TVs are more advanced than those made by Samsung.

In an unusually harsh rhetoric, Samsung recently lashed out at its smaller rival for launching "dishonest" marketing campaigns about their 3-D TV technologies.

LG Display said the company sent the letter to Samsung in order to confirm the situation, adding that if the report of the alleged remark turns out to be true, the company might consider taking legal action against the Samsung executive for damaging the reputation of its engineers.

"If it is true that an executive member of such a respected global company insulted a rival company's workers, it is disappointing and also unacceptable," the LG official added.

Meanwhile, a Samsung official confirmed that Kim made an "inappropriate" remark, saying that he expressed regret for it. The official said that Samsung plans to keep as low of a profile as possible, fearing that a protracted fight between the world's leading TV manufacturers might tarnish its corporate image in the global market.

The fact that they jumped generations straight to 8G should indicate somewhat about their strategy. They do not think OLED is competitive in the highly commoditised 11-30" PC space. However the corollary is also true that it will be competitive in the TV space for the perceived value in PQ and aesthetic improvements, especially in the premium space as rogo indicated, even if it may very well never be cheaper than LCD TV.

But just as it is possible to ship 10m >60" TV ie 5% market eventually, IMHO it is also likely that 10m OLED TV is not far fetch. Which is also why I don't think there is no room for plasma to exist in the next 10 years. The assumption of winner takes all is probably incorrect in the medium term.

PS on Apple using LCD, it is not a question of whether it thinks LCD with retina resolution is superior. It is a question of whether it has a choice in the first place.

I'm reasonably sure that 60-inch+ TVs will eventually comprise somewhere between 3 and 10% of the market. As for 10 million OLED TVs, perhaps by decade's end. Maybe five years? Sooner than that? Not a chance.

Re: Apple. If they wanted a 4-5 inch OLED display for an iPhone, it would likely exist. One thing that drives markets is people stepping up to buy the product. The volumes Apple pushes would allow manufacturers to justify the investment in production. I will agree that no one on earth could make enough 10" OLEDs for the iPad at this time. If you are saying that Apple couldn't have gotten enough screens for iPhones that were OLED, then I can say the only possible reason is that no one could make them.

Until Galaxy S, Samsung itself could not have outbid Apple for displays from Samsung as they'd have nothing to put them in. And, again, if Apple told LG they wanted 100 million 4-5" OLEDs 2 years from now for iPhone, they could back that up with a pre-payment. Call me when someone else can do that.

JMO, but I dont think that the relevant question is whether OLED's will be cheaper than LCD's, but rather whether they can at least approach LCD prices. ....

You are putting the cart before the horse. Of course LCD's will outsell OLED's during that time period. The first thing we need to see is shifts in capex spending.

So the topic is about OLED in the context of televisions. Just because Asian media can say they will "leapfrog from 32 to 55 inch" doesn't mean I have to buy it.

There is no such precedent really. No one has been able to produce a remotely affordable OLED over 7 inches. We know that drive voltages are a serious issue as screen size ramps and that in any fab, the production costs of larger displays cut from the same motherglass are higher unless yields are very very high. I have no idea what the yield is for the 7-inch displays, but I'm going to guess it's not near the LCD yield. I'm also going to guess that issues with scaling to larger sizes are pushing down yields at, say, LG, even more than the normal yield depression you get from bigger cuts.

I don't see a chance in hell of a 55-inch OLED TV shipping at any price next year and I see the chance as very small for a high-priced one to ship in 2013. I base this on the fact that even a 15-inch will be a bridge too far in 2011 (the LG will exist, be hard to find, cost an astronomical sum, and, oh, be hard to find). I base the future predictions not on some high-minded cap ex numbers, which are driven almost 100% by mobile phones and tablets, but on the utter lack of historical precedent. Thing being made in tiny sizes doesn't suddenly become thing made in giant sizes when the history of said thing has been its very slow ramp up from even tinier sizes (the first full color OLED in a practical CE device was used on a digital camera I'm fairly sure).

I'm curious what dates spec would put on the various TV sizes.

Do you think we'll see 32" OLED TV next Christmas, probably $5000? That's as precise as I can get :) agree we won't see 55" next year but no one's saying that either. It will have to wait for 8G, if ever.

I have to disagree on Apple getting supplies. LG either couldn't make them on handsets for reasons unknown to me, or they are incoherent in their strategy. I think it is the latter and they are really clueless after all these years and make sense they will always be second fiddle.

Samsung wouldn't sell any OLED to Apple just as it stopped selling to HTC after a short while because galaxy S were selling so well! At least I see Sammy being coherent in strategy. To be honest, even if apple gave prepayment they won't get OLED from Sammy. Capacity doesn't appear overnight even if you have the dough, which sammy is not lacking either. They are as much on a collision course as Apple with Google, despite Sammy as Apple's foundry.

NB strategically if you were Sammy what would you do if you control 90% of a market that differentiates your product? That's what Bill Gates did in Microsoft. Comparatively Balmer is a joke and belongs to LG's league.

My point about Samsung and Apple is that Apple could've made the deal 2 years ago. At that point, Galaxy S was probably not even a sketch in product design. The guys who sell displays would've taken the billions 2 years ago, not waited for Samsung to maybe produce a competitive phone.

Similarly, if Apple showed up on LG's doorstep tomorrow with $5 billion toward 10" OLED displays for the 2012 iPad, I believe it could happen. But Apple from what I can detect sees no strategic advantage in OLED. Most people consider the Retina Display the best phone display on the market (and even experts who do side by side testing find it "one of the best"). Apple is doubtless more interested in a Retina Display iPad than in OLED per se. Of course, if/when Apple goes OLED, they will tell us they more or less invented it. :)

I base the future predictions not on some high-minded cap ex numbers, which are driven almost 100% by mobile phones and tablets,

I am not sure what you mean by "high-minded". Following the historical precedents makes sense to me right up until you start seeing dollars spent to upend that historical model.

We still dont have an official announcement of a Gen 8 fab, but if we do get one, you can be sure that they arent building it with 7" tablets in mind. That size fab only makes sense for television sized displays.

Slacker

FWIW it is rumored that Apple asked CMI to develop OLED which made me excited about this sleepy stock. Unfortunately I had to relearn AGAIN the importance of TIMING. :(

And I totally agree Apple would be able to publicise OLED as if they invented it, just like IPS or gorilla glass :D

So what percent of today's TV market is held by 60"+ TVs?

should be around 1% or 2mio new sales annual (not installed base) including RPTV

I'm surprised. I thought it was more common. I have a 61" JVC RPTV and would find it difficult to go any smaller.

Think probably 5-10% if 50"+. This stat is hard to come by as large display in the industry is defined as anything >10" :)

But RPTV is 0.1% as in 4Q10

I am not sure what you mean by "high-minded". Following the historical precedents makes sense to me right up until you start seeing dollars spent to upend that historical model.

We still dont have an official announcement of a Gen 8 fab, but if we do get one, you can be sure that they arent building it with 7" tablets in mind. That size fab only makes sense for television sized displays.



First of all, 7" tablets are going to seem like a curiosity compared to the volumes of 10" tablets sold. Apple is the dominant tablet maker and doesn't currently even offer a 7" model. Samsung and Motorola are both coming out with 10" models.

Second of all, there is absolutely no reason why a giant fab doesn't make sense to make 10" panels. Cycle times on fabs and fabbing equipment are improved through the use of larger substrates regardless of the ultimate number of panels those are cut into . Imagine a machine that takes the glass in and "processes" it. The machine can be built large enough to handle larger substrates, but due to tolerances, the need for precision, etc. it can only hold one piece of glass at a time.

It doesn't much matter whether you are making 5" screens or 85" screens, you want the piece of glad place into said "processing machine" to be as large as possible. They make 32" panels on giant LCD fabs, which by your logic would "make no sense".

I'm not saying that Samsung isn't gearing up to make OLED TVs. But I sure am skeptical that they are. They haven't done so to date. They are dominant in LCD and ridiculously strong in plasma. They need a third TV technology like Jay Leno needs another car. Let's use Specuvestor's prediction as the one that intrigues me for the moment:

2012, Christmas, $5000, 32-inch OLED TV

I'm betting against; I think he's betting on for.

I hope he's correct.

(note: either way, an OLED TV that should interest any of us here is 2+ years away -- minimum.)

Second of all, there is absolutely no reason why a giant fab doesn't make sense to make 10" panels. Cycle times on fabs and fabbing equipment are improved through the use of larger substrates regardless of the ultimate number of panels those are cut into . Imagine a machine that takes the glass in and "processes" it. The machine can be built large enough to handle larger substrates, but due to tolerances, the need for precision, etc. it can only hold one piece of glass at a time.

It doesn't much matter whether you are making 5" screens or 85" screens, you want the piece of glad place into said "processing machine" to be as large as possible. They make 32" panels on giant LCD fabs, which by your logic would "make no sense".

Yes, but the efficiency gains of using larger sizes of glass go way down when you are building smaller than optimal displays. It becomes much harder to justify the increased capex and that is particularly true for a Gen 8 OLED fab since it will require new processes and will likely have much lower yields than the Gen 4 and Gen 5.5 fabs.

Here is a table from Samsung illustrating that point for the Gen 5.5 plant.

http://www.olednet.co.kr/img/focuson/10_07/100701_02.jpg

Considering the move to new processes, and thus lower yields, a Gen 8 fab used for mobile displays would likely have higher per unit costs than those produced at a Gen 4 and Gen 5.5.

FWIW, I have been on record for quite a while saying that we'll see a sub-$5000 32" TV in 2012. I actually think there is a decent chance we'll get well below that price point. If I'm wrong, I'll be here to take my lumps.

Slacker

2012, Christmas, $5000, 32-inch OLED TV

I'm betting against; I think he's betting on for.


LG 30"+ should drop this year. When LG laid out future OLED plans in 2009 and claimed(outlandishly) they would have have comparable to LCD priced OLEDs in 2015, they also announced a 30"+ in 2010, which they obviously failed to deliver on. Slips at the beginning compound near on longer term plans.

But the price rumors I saw for the LG 31" was £6000 (> $9000 USD).

I think $5000 USD 32" for 2012 might be a close one, so you need to define terms of any bet precisely. Does 31" count? Which currency/country delivered?

Guidryp, to clarify, $5000 USD MSRP. And, yes, I'll give Spec the inch to allow for the LG.

By the way, I don't believe that LG will be available for purchase in the U.S. if it ships this year in Korea. I do believe the $9000 price.

Again, I don't really want to be right.

Yeah, I don't think there is high chance of 31"+ $5000 USD shipping in the USA by the the end of 2012, unless it is a black friday sale.

Yes, but the efficiency gains of using larger sizes of glass go way down when you are building smaller than optimal displays. It becomes much harder to justify the increased capex and that is particularly true for a Gen 8 OLED fab since it will require new processes and will likely have much lower yields than the Gen 4 and Gen 5.5 fabs.

Here is a table from Samsung illustrating that point for the Gen 5.5 plant.

Considering the move to new processes, and thus lower yields, a Gen 8 fab used for mobile displays would likely have higher per unit costs than those produced at a Gen 4 and Gen 5.5.
yes the maths for slacker is right, in particular higher depreciation and motherglass cost. In addition your selling price ASP for smaller size is also much lower ie lower price and higher cost is double whammy.

8G is not profitable for 32" mainly due to glass and manufacturing cost plus non cash depreciation for the fab. Cost is not linear per m2 as motherglass size increases. We know this because LGD tried making 32" with their 7.5G plant in 2006 just to fill up capacity.

Guidryp, to clarify, $5000 USD MSRP. And, yes, I'll give Spec the inch to allow for the LG.

By the way, I don't believe that LG will be available for purchase in the U.S. if it ships this year in Korea. I do believe the $9000 price.

Again, I don't really want to be right.
It's ok. I'm in the business of approximately right than absolutely wrong :)

I don't trust LG in innovation implementation.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-fluorescent-oleds-greater-efficiencies-believed.html

Greater quantum efficiency of blue OLEDs. Now up to 10% QY.

http://www.oled-info.com/sony-pvm-1741-pvm-2541

The PVM-1741 and PVM-2541 are professional OLED monitors aimed towards TV, advertising and movie productions. These monitors use the same 16.5" and 24.5" OLED panels used in the higher-end BVM-E170/BVM-E250. Both monitors offer Full-HD (1080p) support, 89-degrees viewing angle, 10-bit drivers and a 1W mono speaker. Inputs include two 3G-SDI, HDMI, composite and Ethernet.

http://www.oled-info.com/files/images/Sony-PVM-2541.jpg

Both monitors will be released in Q2 2011 in Japan. The PVM-1741 will cost ¥417,900 ($4,900) and the PVM-2541 will cost ¥627,900 ($7,400). That's much cheaper then the BVM monitors (which cost $15,000 and $30,000).

Next flat-screens arriving

Another noticeable thing in this year’s NAB is that organic LED or OLED screens ― which are the next-generation flat-screen technology after the conventional plasma and the industry’s current mainstream of LCD screens ― are becoming more affordable.

OLED screens have clearer images than LCD ones, however, cost still matters. The screens are currently being used for smaller high-end devices such as handsets.

Although the top TV maker Samsung is developing OLED televisions for first-mover advantage, it’s expected that the market for advanced and premium TVs is still 7 years away, according to market watchers and analysts.

Sony, which already commercialized 11-inch OLED TV and the prototype of its 27-inch OLED set, has released 17-inch and 25-inch OLED monitors for professional use.

``It’s been crucial to open the market. 3D images require clearer viewing and we will do more starting from professional use,’’ said Yang Woo-jin, general manager for the Planning and Marketing Division.

But Yang declined to unveil the name of its new customers for OLED monitors, though the monitors are expected to be shipped just right after NAB.

``This year will see more 3D films and programs by film makers and broadcasters, which means 3D-capable equipment is more than crucial. That’s a new but very attractive market,’’ said another participant at the show.

``Chances are that Sony could strengthen its lead in 3D-equipment for professional use because of lower costs and improved functionality.’’
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2011/04/129_84988.html

"Although the top TV maker Samsung is developing OLED televisions for first-mover advantage, it’s expected that the market for advanced and premium TVs is still 7 years away, according to market watchers and analysts."

And that says it all. Thanks for the links, good stuff.

The PVM-1741 will cost ¥417,900 ($4,900) and the PVM-2541 will cost ¥627,900 ($7,400). That's much cheaper then the BVM monitors (which cost $15,000 and $30,000).

Personally, I think this says quite a bit. A 25" non-consumer OLED that is likely produced on a tiny experimental line will be available for $7400 in Q2.

The prediction for sub-$5000 30" OLED's by the end of 2012 is looking safer all the time.

Slacker

Korea launch, any increase in resolution will be good news, in preparation of tablet launch:

"SEC will launch Galaxy S2 on Apr. 25th instead of June to preempt Apple's iPhone 5 launch in 3Q11.

Specs:
- 4.3" Super AMOLED panel.
- 1.2GHz dual-core CPU
- 8.7mm thin
- HSPA+, 2X faster N/W than 3G
- High-speed Bluetooth 3.0+HS
- Gingerbread Android OS 2.3
- 8 Megapixel camera
- 16/32GB available
- W900,000 (US$820) or W200,000 (US$180) with 2-year plan"

Personally, I think this says quite a bit. A 25" non-consumer OLED that is likely produced on a tiny experimental line will be available for $7400 in Q2.

The prediction for sub-$5000 30" OLED's by the end of 2012 is looking safer all the time.


The Sony broadcast unit has an 89-degree viewing angle? That sounds awful for an emissive display. Do they mean 178 degree?

Regardless, I'm glad you think the prediction is safe. Call me when someone ships a model that meets the criteria and I can buy it from Best Buy.

Korea launch, any increase in resolution will be good news, in preparation of tablet launch:

"SEC will launch Galaxy S2 on Apr. 25th instead of June to preempt Apple's iPhone 5 launch in 3Q11.

Specs:
- 4.3" Super AMOLED panel.


How many pixels do you think the phone will have?

I have no info on this, but I hope SVGA 800X600 will be good step and closer to retina display, 1280X720 on the tablet will be ideal

PS Nokia new OLED phone X7 is disappointingly just 360 x 640, though probably correlated with their 680Mhz ARM.

The Galaxy s2 has a 800x480 display. My understanding is that Samsung wont be able to match the iPhone pixel density while using their current manufacturing process (shadow mask with vacuum deposition). They are limited to something like 250ppi.

If the Gen 8 rumors are true, both LG and Samsung likely have a new process in mind. The shadow mask is unlikely to be able to scale to those substrate sizes.

Slacker

800 x 480 would be the same as the original galaxy s and shouldn't be too hopeful on the OLED tablet resolution then

800 x 480 would be the same as the original galaxy s and shouldn't be too hopeful on the OLED tablet resolution then

They increased the number of pixels on the Galaxy S2 by getting rid of the pentile display, but that still doesnt get them to iPhone 4 quality. If the rumors are true, LG would be able to achieve a "retina" display using their WRGB scheme in their rumored Gen 8 fab....but that is still a long way off.

As for tablets, the Xoom has a 1280x800 10" display and that translates to around 160ppi. Samsung should be able to achieve that using their current manufacturing process. The hold up to OLED tablets is going to be capacity and perhaps yields on the Gen 5.5 fab.

Slacker

Yes I am using pixel density in smart phones to estimate the resolution that tablets could possibly achieve. Hence iPad 2 was disappointing in this aspect as retina display on TFT were already mass produced.

This might be positvie with respect to cost and presentation:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-brighten-future-oled-technology.html

tt

That's interesting Ted, but I'd put in a long category of 1000s of improvements over >10 years that have yet to produce 1 interesting television. There are so many articles about breakthroughs lowering OLED production costs, when will be see OLEDs based on these breakthroughs?

Color me a bit worried that the major manufacturers will find a way to take what should be a picture perfect technology and 'gimp' it with oversaturated color, etc on it's "presets" and make it so that you can't tune a 'perfect' picture even though you should be able to.

There are so many articles about breakthroughs lowering OLED production costs, when will be see OLEDs based on these breakthroughs?

The cynic in me tends to believe that this might be the current generation SED. I would like it to be within my affordability lifetime which grows shorter daily. ;)

tt

It all depends if the 5.5G fab ramps smoothly and profitably in 2Q. And we'll probably see a 32" AMOLED from Samsung at $5k next year.

But with the earthquake in japan, not even sure if 2Q will be realistic as Japan provides 2/3 OLED layers needed. People forget that the nuclear plant provides at least 1/3 of Japan's power and they are having power ration now. This will be a structural problem for some time.

"According to ET News, a Korean online newspaper, SMD seems to be facing
difficulty to procure equipments for its 5.5G OLED capacity ram-up.

SMD has set the full ramp-up of the 5.5G by year end, and was set in four
phases. As of now, 5.5G A1 line is in operation (24k units/month), and the
loading of the equipments for the A2 line has been already completed. The
problem seems to be stemming from its A3 and A4 lines, which SMD is looking to
complete ramp-up by the end of this year. SMD expects about 1 month delay in
phase 3 capacity expansion. The problems arose as Nikkon's Lithography
equipment has problems being shipped to Korea, while Toki's Evaporation
facility has problems due to component misses, making SMD difficult to start
the phase 3 ramp-up."

The cynic in me tends to believe that this might be the current generation SED. I would like it to be within my affordability lifetime which grows shorter daily. ;)


horntoot
I explained for a couple of years here why SED would never reach the market during the alleged build up to production by Toshiba / Canon. I was largely mocked and sometimes ignored. I don't think OLED is quite that grim, but it's again worth noting that one of the central advantages of "the TV technology you cannot buy" is that it's "cheaper than existing technology".

Some people here are pretty convinced 60 inch LCD is going to reach $1000 in the next year or two. If that happens, I don't see anyone following through on Spec's reports of CapEx spending to make TV-sized OLEDs. It'd be a half decade before they got production costs down to a profitable level. And when they can already make money selling TVs, it just won't make sense.

Again, I'm still hopeful/sanguine OLED TVs will reach the market and be somewhat affordable someday. I was never that sanguine about SED.

Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED.

The biggest risk IMHO is not pricing but rather LCD improving contrast amd technology as much as Nielo expects. That is why an AMOLED tablet launch will be an important milestone: it will determine if it is competitive in the mid size market.

"Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED."

My premise is more nuanced than you shorthand it to be.

It either has to be price competitive or it has to be "really clearly superior" to sell for anywhere near 2x the price. And that kind of superiority is simply not a given.

But furthermore, the ability to bring it to market at anywhere near as low as 2x LCD is also hardly a given. And LCD is a moving target on price and picture quality. It's moving down the learning curve, it's getting improvements almost annually, etc. etc. OLED is still a mostly theoretical product for TV. Time is marching on and OLED has to be competitive with 2015-16 LCDs.

Transcript from LGD results:

<Q - Abrams>: Oh, LCD fab. And lastly just on OLEDs, can you give us an update on what the status is of your OLED production facilities?

<A - Kim>: For now, we already started small sized OLED production at end of first quarter this year and the capacity is around 4K in terms of [indiscernible] (19:52) input and it will be increased to 12K in the middle of this year, that's over our capacity growth, our plan for small sized OLED fab. And then we will also - we also have planned to eighth-generation OLED fab ramp-up maybe in the middle of year 2013. So that's our - just planning for our ramp-up schedule for TV OLED. So it means this year we will test our suitable technology for eighth generation OLED. If we decide to choose one suitable solution maybe at the end of this year, we will announce CapEx investment made next year.

<Q - Abrams>: Got it. And the 4K to 12K ramp that you're doing now is in which generation facility?

<A - Kim>: 4.5 generation.

<snip>

<Q - Seggerman>: Hello. Thank you for you presentation. I wanted to ask about AMOLED. I had heard from an analyst that very, very recently you had sold 7,000 or 8,000 AMOLED panels to Nokia. This may or may not be true. Did you sell AMOLED panels to Nokia? And why Nokia instead of LG Electronics? Question number two, on the same subject, is I noticed here that you've got IPS in the upper-right corner of your presentation. Is there a view internally that the IPS solution, which is in the Retina Display as I understand it, is somehow equal to or even superior to AMOLED in -especially in text reading - for text reading purposes?

<A - Kim>: For your first question, as I mentioned before, we already started the production of our small-size OLED fab in first quarter this year. It means we already start provide our small size OLED panel to a major global customer. The major global customer, we cannot disclose their direct name, but we think you might be right. And in the middle of this year, we also have a plan to provide our small-size OLED panel to our local customer, LG Electronics.

And for your second question, IPS technology, actually if you look at iPhone or iPad, although this is our - this iPhone uses IPS technology, we are main suppliers. Actually if you look at iPhone, although that's not OLED display you can easily see the text message because of our sophisticated high resolution characteristics. This kind of sophisticated resolution technology is driven by IPS technology. Is it okay, for your answer?

<Q - Seggerman>: So just then you're saying that the company has strong belief in the IPS technology relative to OLED technology; not necessarily better. And you do confirm that you have sold AMOLED panels globally, but I guess I - the question is why did you not sell AMOLED panels for the Optimus?

<A - Kim>: Why - actually, that's not our - that's not our issue; actually, it is related to our customer's product line up and product line up schedules. So we already have a plan to provide our OLED and IPS panel to our customers; that's customer's product line up and schedule issue.

<Q - Seggerman>: Okay. Your customer is, of course, your largest shareholder. But in any case, thank you for answering my question.

Mr Seggerman's question is the same one I asked LG last year around this time. That is why I say LG is incoherent and will continue to be 2nd fiddle. If OLED TV is to be, it will be a Samsung. Sony has to resolve her schizophrenia first :D Sony could spin off its multiple divisions and no one would have noticed a difference.

Incoherent is a great description of that snippet. "Oh, yes, you are asking about LCD panels so we will talk a little bit about LCD panels even though you think you are asking about OLED panels."

At least they are ramping from 4k somethingorothers to 12k somethingorothers.

As an aside, if iPad is indeed not a fad and the next great computing platform (and I believe it is), all theoretical future OLED capacity at this point could be absorbed solely by tablets and phones for the next decade if those form factors migrated to OLED.

As an aside, if iPad is indeed not a fad and the next great computing platform (and I believe it is)

Ahh Rogo. Standup in the morning!

I thought that psyorg article from last week about the energy savings from the thin film coating was an excellent indicator of progress. Will that breakthrough all for these panels to scale cheaply enough to be seen in sizes of at least 50" by the end of the decade?

That PhysOrg article was one of 200+ articles on OLED over the past decade that purported to offer some breakthrough that makes OLED manufacturing viable/cheap/whatever. It's not clear any of the developments described in any of the articles have ever been implemented on an OLED production line.

And, yes, I'd bet on a 50-inch by the end of the decade. But I wouldn't bet my entire life savings on it.

It's not clear any of the developments described in any of the articles have ever been implemented on an OLED production line.

Yeah, that reminds me of a man I heard on NPR a month or two back who was involved in trying to bring scientific discoveries out of the lab and onto the market. He was talking about how there is a lot of time, money, and effort put into discovering new things but there are no clear channels for introducing these breakthroughs into the market as a product.

I recall him making some mention of organizational inefficiencies but I suppose we could talk about that topic for another 6 pages.

As an aside, if iPad is indeed not a fad and the next great computing platform (and I believe it is), all theoretical future OLED capacity at this point could be absorbed solely by tablets and phones for the next decade if those form factors migrated to OLED.

Yes IMHO Samsung strategy is right... go with smaller sizes before TV, like LCD used to do. LG on the other hand is trying to do TV first??? They trying to compete first to market with SED?? :) But for sure 4.5G and 5.5G is ramping more or less +/- 6 months according to schedule.

Incoherent because LG develop a differentiating product just to sell to... their competitor?? :P At least Samsung sell scraps to HTC and now to Nokia... if there are scraps. LG mobile can't even put it on their phones but Nokia can?? I can't believe the stupidity until I remember CIA bought drugs from Columbia and sells in US to fund their operations in Columbia. Then I can be less harsh on LG.

And yes Tablet is here to stay (can't say the same for 3D). I doubt it will be dominated by Apple in 5 years' time but that is pertinent on how long Jobs gonna be on the job :) The disastrous Newton was just ahead of its time.

Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED.

Exactly - and there is a huge and obviously-perceivable positive difference of OLED over LCD (and in fact all other display types). Also, it's not very fair to compare OLED HDTVs to the cheapest LCD (for those discussing $1000 60-inch LCD TVs). The proper comparison would be the price of high-end LCDs compared to OLEDs as even high-end LCDs will be put to shame by OLED.

"Your premise has always been it has to be price competitive with LCD. IMHO it would be competitive if it sells at twice of LCD price, as long as there is perceivable difference between LCD and AMOLED."

My premise is more nuanced than you shorthand it to be.

It either has to be price competitive or it has to be "really clearly superior" to sell for anywhere near 2x the price. And that kind of superiority is simply not a given.

But furthermore, the ability to bring it to market at anywhere near as low as 2x LCD is also hardly a given. And LCD is a moving target on price and picture quality. It's moving down the learning curve, it's getting improvements almost annually, etc. etc. OLED is still a mostly theoretical product for TV. Time is marching on and OLED has to be competitive with 2015-16 LCDs.

By then OLED will be as cheap or cheaper to produce than LCD (no backlighting being one factor) and it's already better quality by far. I would expect it to be even more so by that time.

Ahh Rogo. Standup in the morning!

I thought that psyorg article from last week about the energy savings from the thin film coating was an excellent indicator of progress. Will that breakthrough all for these panels to scale cheaply enough to be seen in sizes of at least 50" by the end of the decade?

What's this about 8 years? Samsung has a gen 8 plant underway starting this year that will be producing 55" and smaller OLED HDTVs likely within 18-24 months from now.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-invest-48-billion-oleds-2011

We already know that Samsung is committed to a $2.2 billion 5.5-Gen AMOLED plant which will go online in July 2011, but now Samsung announced further investments in 2011. A couple of months ago there were reports that Samsung plans a Gen-8 pilot line for OLED TVs that will produce 4000 55" OLED TVs monthly. Perhaps Samsung will indeed build this plant during 2011.

I'm not saying that Samsung isn't gearing up to make OLED TVs. But I sure am skeptical that they are. They haven't done so to date. They are dominant in LCD and ridiculously strong in plasma. They need a third TV technology like Jay Leno needs another car.

By that logic Samsung wouldn't be producing OLED for cellphones either. But they are, big time.

Except there is no such plant that is making these TVs. There is a plan to make a plant that might be used for TV at some point. That has so little to do with actually making TVs.

And, you're quite frankly wrong about phones/tablets. They didn't have 2 phone-screen technologies, they had one (LCD) and they aren't nearly as dominant there. It's also true that making small OLED displays can be done. It can even be done in reasonable quantity -- although no one is arguing they are cost competitive with LCD yet and they might never be.

TV is not mobile phones. The technological challenges of making very large OLED displays with reasonable power supply requirements have not been solved. The ability to produce a high yield on large panels is not proved. The possibility of marketing meaningful amounts of TVs at 2x - 5x the price of LCDs and plasmas is not a given.

Again, I'm not saying Samsung will never produce OLED TVs. I am, however, saying, that no matter what you read at OLED fanboy sites, they have not committed to do any such thing and there is almost no reason to believe any plant capable of producing 55-inch TVs will be online in 2011.

Except there is no such plant that is making these TVs. There is a plan to make a plant that might be used for TV at some point. That has so little to do with actually making TVs.

How do you figure investing US $4.8 Billion in a gen 8 OLED factory has "little to do" with making OLED HDTVs? That's the only purpose of a gen 8 factory.

And, you're quite frankly wrong about phones/tablets. They didn't have 2 phone-screen technologies, they had one (LCD) and they aren't nearly as dominant there. It's also true that making small OLED displays can be done. It can even be done in reasonable quantity -- although no one is arguing they are cost competitive with LCD yet and they might never be.

OLED screens on cellphones are ALREADY cost-effective against LCD, which is why they're being ramped so quickly. They barely cost more than LCDs to make and sell at a premium.

TV is not mobile phones. The technological challenges of making very large OLED displays with reasonable power supply requirements have not been solved. The ability to produce a high yield on large panels is not proved. The possibility of marketing meaningful amounts of TVs at 2x - 5x the price of LCDs and plasmas is not a given.

LCDs and plasmas cost a lot when they released too. But neither had OLED's advantages in display quality and low cost of construction/materials.

Again, I'm not saying Samsung will never produce OLED TVs. I am, however, saying, that no matter what you read at OLED fanboy sites, they have not committed to do any such thing and there is almost no reason to believe any plant capable of producing 55-inch TVs will be online in 2011.

Is this a "fanboy" site too?

http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2009/12/korean-government-approves-samsung-and-lg-display-investments-in-china/

Exactly - and there is a huge and obviously-perceivable positive difference of OLED over LCD (and in fact all other display types). Also, it's not very fair to compare OLED HDTVs to the cheapest LCD (for those discussing $1000 60-inch LCD TVs). The proper comparison would be the price of high-end LCDs compared to OLEDs as even high-end LCDs will be put to shame by OLED.


By that argument, Plasma should be winning out over LCD. It has similar advantages. Superior viewing angles, better blacks, better response time.

LCD being only a little cheaper pulled ahead massively.

You haven't heard of the concept of "good enough".

Sure I would like pure blacks, but until it is under $2000, I really don't care, because I really don't notice once I am watching a movie on my LCD.

We are probably looking at 2 or 3 years until a reasonable size (40" +) OLED TV shows up and another 5 years on top of that until it is reasonably priced.

So yeah, the future is probably OLED. I will probably be shopping for one in 2018.

But it doesn't really matter much today.

Sure I would like pure blacks, but until it is under $2000, I really don't care, because I really don't notice once I am watching a movie on my LCD.
What about in dark scenes when the finer detail is washed out by a poor contrast ratio? Even my Kuro isn't deep enough to prevent this completely.

What about in dark scenes when the finer detail is washed out by a poor contrast ratio? Even my Kuro isn't deep enough to prevent this completely.

Exactly. And what about having a TV set that's 2mm thin? Or how about 3D performance for movies and gaming? Only OLED is fast enough to do it properly. And what about rollup screens that look like the projector screens of today, only they aren't projectors but rather OLED screens that rollup when you're not using them? Also something only OLED can do.

Thinking that a comparison of plasma to LCD is any way analogous to a comparison with OLED isn't considering enough, IMO.

Well, thinness and rollup capability don't affect PQ one iota (the latter being 10 years away if not more, I have little doubt). I was only focusing on the most important aspect of PQ, which OLED seems poised to be more than capable in performance. On the other side of the coin, though, there are also other considerations like the lifetime of OLED panels, which I don't think measure up to present-day Plasma/LCD.

What about in dark scenes when the finer detail is washed out by a poor contrast ratio? Even my Kuro isn't deep enough to prevent this completely.

You mean black crush? that sounds like a calibration issue to me.

No, I do not. My 111FD was procalibrated by David Abrams of Avical. There is a limit to how much detail can be perceived on all flat panels when it pertains to scenes with low light.

How do you figure investing US $4.8 Billion in a gen 8 OLED factory has "little to do" with making OLED HDTVs? That's the only purpose of a gen 8 factory.

Call me when it's built. Then call when it's producing panels. Until then, it's an announcement, which doesn't mean anything.

OLED screens on cellphones are ALREADY cost-effective against LCD, which is why they're being ramped so quickly. They barely cost more than LCDs to make and sell at a premium.

They cost more. They last for less time. Oh, and they cost more.

LCDs and plasmas cost a lot when they released too. But neither had OLED's advantages in display quality and low cost of construction/materials.

Ok, this is the worst of the canards. LCD and plasma cost more 10-20 years ago than they do know, yes. But now they are dirt cheap. When they came into being, they faced no competition. Now, there is competition from them. This competition is why there is not OLED TV. And I'm sorry, but OLED just flat out does not have "low cost of construction/materials". If it did, it would be cheaper than LCD. It isn't.

Is this a "fanboy" site too?

http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2009/12/korean-government-approves-samsung-and-lg-display-investments-in-china/

Wow, did you even read that article? First of all, it says nothing about building an OLED factory anyway. Perhaps you zeroed in on this one sentence and mis-read it: "The Samsung and LG groups will continue investment in Korea, especially AMOLED and the Gen 8+ fabs."

What that sentence is actually about is that Samsung and LG both want to invest in building plants in China -- for LCD (and perhaps plasma). But the Korean government wants them also to keep domestic mfg. strong. So they are basically promising the Chinese new plants, investments, jobs, etc. and also promising the Korean gov't that they will not stop investing domestically. The reference to Gen 8+ fabs is about LCD, not OLED. The reference about AMOLED is about investing in AMOLED. I'm sure a strained reading of that sentence out of context could lead one to believe they are committed to Gen 8+ fabs for OLED, but that's certainly not what's being said.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that Samsung is still committed to OLED for its phones and eventually its tablets, assuming that business ever really takes off for them. I'm also sure they'll eventually sell those displays to Apple, et al. Concluding from that there is any inevitability to OLED TVs is akin to concluding that because lawnmowers are powered by lawnmower engines there will eventually be cars powered by them. It might happen, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

Well, thinness and rollup capability don't affect PQ one iota (the latter being 10 years away if not more, I have little doubt). I was only focusing on the most important aspect of PQ, which OLED seems poised to be more than capable in performance. On the other side of the coin, though, there are also other considerations like the lifetime of OLED panels, which I don't think measure up to present-day Plasma/LCD.

The phosphorescent red and green material that Universal Display provides to manufacturers like Samsung have lifetimes over 100,000 hours. I'd say that's plenty for a TV (that's 11 YEARS of 100% time on). As for blue they use the less-efficient fluorescent blue which also has a long lifetime.

They cost more. They last for less time. Oh, and they cost more.

Here are the facts (as opposed to your generalized "they cost more" comments):

http://www.powerusers.info/images/misc/pricecompare.jpg
(source Gabelli and iSuppli)

As for lifetimes, the red/green materials being used for today's OLED displays has lifetimes of over 100,000 hours. More on that below:

http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=604

http://www.universaldisplay.com/img/PHOLED%20data.png

Ok, this is the worst of the canards. LCD and plasma cost more 10-20 years ago than they do know, yes. But now they are dirt cheap. When they came into being, they faced no competition. Now, there is competition from them. This competition is why there is not OLED TV. And I'm sorry, but OLED just flat out does not have "low cost of construction/materials". If it did, it would be cheaper than LCD. It isn't

I don't see how you can say that. OLEDs can be (and will be) printed like newspaper, onto plastics or metal film (roll-to-roll printing). No backlighting or other extra supporting devices are needed. That fact alone shows they will be cheaper. They also use no hazardous metals or other materials like the mercury found in the backlighting of an LCD screen that uses fluorescent tubes.

9000 hours isn't a "long" lifetime in relation to the others. :o

By that argument, Plasma should be winning out over LCD. It has similar advantages. Superior viewing angles, better blacks, better response time.

LCD being only a little cheaper pulled ahead massively....

There are other factors. For example, LCDs are generally easier to watch in brightly lit rooms. So there will be a list of factors to determine OLED success, of which price may be the most important or nearly so.

IMHO lifetime of blue is the most important issue of OLED TV commercializing (niche) within next 12 months. The degradation is likely noticeable even within a 3 years timeframe. I've yet to see people complain about their year old OLED galaxy s phones though.

However taking ref from the past 30 years these kind of technical issues are likely not insurmountable in the longer run. (Maybe a blue color filter will help?) Problem is the trade off with time-to-market.

From Display Search:

"All leading LCD and AMOLED producers have been working on oxide semiconductor TFTs (typically a-IGZO). IGZO offers the potential of low cost and electron mobilities of 10-30X those of a-Si. Higher electron mobility can be used to reduce device size and increase aperture ratio, enhance electronic device integration on to the glass, increase TFT speed, ultra high definition (UD) displays like 4K × 2K at 240 Hz, and is sufficient to drive AMOLED pixels. It is unclear exactly when Sharp started research on oxide semiconductors for TFT LCD, but in December 2009 Sharp presented a paper at IDW Japan suggesting that it had resolved all major issues inhibiting IGZO FPD mass production.

After months of silence, Sharp’s recent announcement stated that it will begin production on its Gen 8 Kameyama line by the end of 2011. The company implied production will target small and medium LCDs, presumably including tablet displays. This implies the potential for a huge amount of production volume: DisplaySearch calculates that if Sharp uses 25% of Kameyama G8 capacity to make tablet panels, it could produce about 33 million panels per year.

Mass production of oxide semiconductor based FPDs would be a major milestone for the industry. Sharp has made many manufacturing breakthroughs, including the first Gen 6, Gen 8 and Gen 10 fabs and UV²A optical alignment. Now it looks like Sharp may become the world’s first commercial producer of oxide semiconductor-based LCDs.

If Sharp is successful with IGZO, it will be another notch in its technology portfolio. But it is unclear if it offers enough benefit to small/medium displays to gain significant market share, and it is unclear how big the near term market for UD displays is. Oxide semiconductors in themselves may not be big enough to overcome high production costs in Japan, heavy reliance on the Japanese market, and increasing global competition. Unless Sharp can rapidly develop AMOLEDs, which gain the most from IGZO, it may find once again that the best way to capitalize on its technical prowess is to license it to another manufacturer."

9000 hours isn't a "long" lifetime in relation to the others. :o

You didn't read what I wrote then. I said the red and green were above 100,000 hours and the FLUORESCENT blue that's being used (which isn't the more-desirable and more-efficient phosphorescent blue shown on UDC's page) also has a long lifetime.

@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones. And none of this "printing like newspaper" exists despite a decade of hype. "That fact alone shows they will be cheaper," you wrote. Except it isn't a "fact", it's a theory. And it has no current empirical evidence backing it.

@Spec, because of power saving tech, phone displays are actually rarely on. Also, phones tend to have a somewhat short replacement cycle. I doubt OLED lifetime is a real issue on phones. TVs, on the other hand, are on 6-12 hours a day in many homes. And it's the heavy users that really determine the importance of lifetime in the TV segment. My suspicion is that the heaviest phone users have the display actually on for 2-4 hours per day or so.

Sharp is rumored to be in line for a major, major chunk of iPad 3 screen production.

@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones. And none of this "printing like newspaper" exists despite a decade of hype. "That fact alone shows they will be cheaper," you wrote. Except it isn't a "fact", it's a theory. And it has no current empirical evidence backing it.

It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.

LCD/plasma's days are numbered... learn to accept it.

Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.

@Spec, because of power saving tech, phone displays are actually rarely on. Also, phones tend to have a somewhat short replacement cycle. I doubt OLED lifetime is a real issue on phones. TVs, on the other hand, are on 6-12 hours a day in many homes. And it's the heavy users that really determine the importance of lifetime in the TV segment. My suspicion is that the heaviest phone users have the display actually on for 2-4 hours per day or so.

good point though I suspect smartphones are on closer to 4 hours a day. I know mine does :)
It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.
Theoretically you are right. BLU accounts for roughly 25% of a LCD selling price. However you are right IF AND ONLY IF OLED scales in production. Without scale at 5.5G it is unlikely that OLED will be cheaper than LCD in the TV space.

Even with an 8G I would think OLED will be similarly priced with LCD only after 2018 when their depreciation cost drops off.

Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.

Ain't it the truth.

-JVC D-ILA owner.

I dont think that lifetimes will be a huge concern by the time we get commercial TV's. The current lifetime of an Idemitsu fluorescent blue is supposed to be in the range of 25,000 to 50,000 hours and they are presenting a new version in few weeks at SID 2011.

I would also note that the LG 15" OLED televisions already on the market are listed with a 30,000 hours.

OTOH, I dont expect OLED's to match LCD prices for a long time. As with handset displays, OLED's may be able to close the gap enough to sell in volume but that is very different than actually beating LCD's. Whatever inherent advantages OLED's might have, the economies of scale will be on the side of LCD's for quite a few years.

Slacker

It's a fact that every OLED display out now and in the future do not need backlighting like LCDs do, so that's an entire piece of the design and manufacture that is missing when compared to LCD. So all things being equal it gives OLED a cost to manufacture advantage.

LCD/plasma's days are numbered... learn to accept it.

OK, seriously, stop. Now.

OLEDs don't need backlight units. That's factually true. It in no way proves they are cheaper, will be cheaper, or have a cost-to-produce advantage of any kind. What? How do I know this?

Logic 101: The removal of an arbitrary component from the cost of manufacturing A is not related to the cost of manufacturing B. Example: Some laptops come without optical drives. They are "cheaper" if we look at them only with respect to the optical drive cost. Said laptops often contain SSDs however, which cost more. If we conclude, "laptops without optical drives are cheaper to produce than those with them because they lack optical drives" we would be wrong. This could even be cheap if optical-drive free laptops didn't have SSDs but tended to require more expensive materials to accommodate for their lightweight while maintaining rigidity. Or any of 10 billion other reasons.

When OLEDs are made exactly like LCDs are made, but lack the backlight units, your conclusion will be valid. Since OLEDs are not made even remotely like LCDs are made, your conclusion is not valid. And no re-spinning of it is going to make your conclusion any more valid. On the other hand, the higher voltages that are currently required to even make larger-size OLED TVs remotely possible (see the discussion earlier on AVS, maybe this thread about the need for said voltages) mean OLEDs will likely be more expensive to make indefinitely. But that's really a small factor. The billions and billions of LCDs that have been produced to date mean LCD production is fantastically mature and optimized and will continue to gain further optimization.

And therefore, LCDs will be less expensive to make than OLEDs for as far as the eye can see. And this will only change if one of two things happens (1) There is actually a discontinuous innovation in the production of OLEDs along the lines of the things you read about which don't see the light of day (2) OLEDs are eventually produced in similar volumes to LCDs.

When OLEDs are made exactly like LCDs are made, but lack the backlight units, your conclusion will be valid. Since OLEDs are not made even remotely like LCDs are made, your conclusion is not valid. And no re-spinning of it is going to make your conclusion any more valid. On the other hand, the higher voltages that are currently required to even make larger-size OLED TVs remotely possible (see the discussion earlier on AVS, maybe this thread about the need for said voltages) mean OLEDs will likely be more expensive to make indefinitely.

AMOLED uses Active Matrix which is similar to TFT Array as far as I understand it. Otherwise they are quite different and distinct against LCD or Plasma.

Yes the voltage issue was discussed here in this thread. But also the reason why I posted the news on IGZO by Sharp. That supposedly will help the voltage issue as we discussed. Experts do correct me if my understanding is wrong.

And I wouldn't say indefinitely though :) But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013

You didn't read what I wrote then. I said the red and green were above 100,000 hours and the FLUORESCENT blue that's being used (which isn't the more-desirable and more-efficient phosphorescent blue shown on UDC's page) also has a long lifetime.
The graph was the most telling...you said nothing of the blue LEDs in the post where you embedded the graph. And a "long lifetime" is rather relative. 20,000 hours? 50,000?

And I wouldn't say indefinitely though :) But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013

The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...

To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.

If someone does put together the secret sauce of practical OLED material that has all the right characteristics it will be patented and the license cost will be high for years to come.

When they will actually match LCD on price? Who knows, but it is in a timeframe that is completely irrelevant today. I figure my current set is good for a few more years. After that I will almost certaly get another LCD, then maybe the set after that (~2020?) OLED will be the obvious choice.

The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...

To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.

If someone does put together the secret sauce of practical OLED material that has all the right characteristics it will be patented and the license cost will be high for years to come.

When they will actually match LCD on price? Who knows, but it is in a timeframe that is completely irrelevant today. I figure my current set is good for a few more years. After that I will almost certaly get another LCD, then maybe the set after that (~2020?) OLED will be the obvious choice.This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.

@Pdoherty, all your chart proves is what I already said: They cost more and you can't get big ones.

If you actually look at the chart you'd see that the iPhone 4 screen costs $29 to make while the same size OLED screen on the Nokia N8 costs $27. Which is LESS not more. And the even LARGER 3.7" OLED screens on the HTC Droid and Google Nexus cost even LESS at $24.

So where are you getting that OLED is more expensive from that chart?

Yikes, a little too ideologue for me. You may end up being right, you may end up being wrong. One thing I have learned from experience, however, is to never bet against rogo when it comes to the display technology prediction game.

Well, rogo apparently can't even read the chart since he said the chart proves that OLED screens are more expensive than LCD but the charts shows the opposite.

good point though I suspect smartphones are on closer to 4 hours a day. I know mine does :)

Theoretically you are right. BLU accounts for roughly 25% of a LCD selling price. However you are right IF AND ONLY IF OLED scales in production. Without scale at 5.5G it is unlikely that OLED will be cheaper than LCD in the TV space.

Even with an 8G I would think OLED will be similarly priced with LCD only after 2018 when their depreciation cost drops off.


And Samsung is producing 3 million cellphone-sized AMOLEDs per month now and the already-paid-for and newly-built gen 5.5 factory is coming online in the next two months and will be ramping that production by a factor of 10 (with slight delays from the Japan earthquake/tsunami since some needed equipment shipments are delayed). So they'll be making 30 million/month. And that's just Samsung, not counting LG, AUO, etc who are also in the OLED game.

OTOH, I dont expect OLED's to match LCD prices for a long time. As with handset displays, OLED's may be able to close the gap enough to sell in volume but that is very different than actually beating LCD's. Whatever inherent advantages OLED's might have, the economies of scale will be on the side of LCD's for quite a few years.

True, but even with that consumers are already willing to pay the premium to get an OLED screen because they're better. That's why they can't make the OLED screens fast enough. It's become a major differentiating factor in cellphones.

AMOLED uses Active Matrix which is similar to TFT Array as far as I understand it. Otherwise they are quite different and distinct against LCD or Plasma.

Yes the voltage issue was discussed here in this thread. But also the reason why I posted the news on IGZO by Sharp. That supposedly will help the voltage issue as we discussed. Experts do correct me if my understanding is wrong.

And I wouldn't say indefinitely though :) But quite certainly OLED will not be cheaper than LCD before 2018, assuming G8 ramp in 2013

Most sources disagree with your pessimistic outlook on timeframe for cost-competitveness (and, as I've mentioned many consumers are willing to pay a premium for OLED (for obvious reasons)).

LG says it will happen by 2016 (5 years from now):

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/30/lg-roadmap-predicts-oled-panels-will-cost-less-than-lcd-panels/

Samsung says by 2013-2014:

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-oled-tv-can-compete-against-lcd-in-2013-2014

The future is hard to predict. We were supposed to have 50" SED TVs in 2008...

To make it in Television, OLED needs have durability, correct color spectrum, a reliable/economic way to deposit OLED material in large panels, and seal it from environmental contamination. None of this matters that much in mobiles where they current reside.

I find it slightly funny that you think sealing the screen from environmental contaminants (including water) is MORE relevant in a TV than in a mobile phone, which is much harsher environments in its lifetime.

This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.

Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.

LG, in fact, just displayed this 31" (2.9mm thin) beauty at CES, which I heard they intend to put into production (cost $9000).

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/lgs-31-inch-oled-spin-slices-its-way-into-our-cold-lcd-hearts/

And on this note, Sony and Samsung are REDUCING capital expenditures on LCD (presumably to allow for increased investment in OLED).

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/25/samsung-sony-idUSL3E7FP0E620110425

S-LCD, a flat screen joint venture between Sony Corp and Samsung Electronics , said it would reduce capital by $555 million, as Sony struggles with perennial losses from its TV business and Samsung seeks to shift to a new type of display.

The global liquid crystal display (LCD) market is struggling with faltering demand, with some analysts forecasting the $100 billion LCD TV industry had already peaked last year and would shrink by 3-4 percent annually, as consumers in advanced countries have already traded their bulky tube TV sets to flat screens.

LCD is widely expected to give way to new displays such as energy-efficient active matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED), which is increasingly used in high-end smartphones and tablets and touted as a future large-sized TV display.

In a statement on Monday, S-LCD, which supplies panels to Samsung and Sony, said the move was aimed at improving its capital structure.

The 50-50 LCD joint venture announced its first capital reduction of 600 billion won ($555 million) after more than tripling its capital to 3.9 trillion won since Sony and Samsung formed the venture in 2004 with 1.26 trillion won to ensure smooth supply of flat screens for Sony.

"The decision reflects shrinking demand from Sony after the devastating earthquake in Japan last month and the sector's overall shift in focus to OLED display," said Kim Sung-in, an analyst at Kiwoom Securities.

^^reducing capital is not the same as reducing capital expenditure. The JV has made enough profits which is why they can extract capital rather than dividends which usually does not attract tax. The JV doesn't need funds for expansion as it has been stagnant ever since relationship between Samsung and Sony soured. capital expenditure for the JV has been almost non existent, except for maintenance capex, for past 4 years or so.

Samsung had announced $4b capex each for both LCD and OLED, an increase YoY even for LCD. Samsung has also announced that they have also started their JV fab in China.


Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.

LG, in fact, just displayed this 31" (2.9mm thin) beauty at CES, which I heard they intend to put into production (cost $9000).

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/lgs-31-inch-oled-spin-slices-its-way-into-our-cold-lcd-hearts/
5 years ago OLED was PMOLED and that was a flop. OLED actually died and revived again with AMOLED about 2 years ago.

You are obviously an OLED fan, which I am one, but you also obviously have not been reading much of this thread, even the recent ones, to make such posts. I suggest you read up abit more on the issue to piece the puzzle rather than just focus on snippets here and there or what the companies said, especially LG. Engadget seems to agree with my pessimism with LG.


LG says it will happen by 2016 (5 years from now):

http://hd.engadget.com/2009/10/30/lg-roadmap-predicts-oled-panels-will-cost-less-than-lcd-panels/

Samsung says by 2013-2014:

http://www.oled-display.net/samsung-oled-tv-can-compete-against-lcd-in-2013-2014

BTW Samsung did not say it will be PRICE competitive. OLED has a good chance of competing in TV with 200% premium in 2014, looking at the 2011 TV model pricing structure.

Well, rogo apparently can't even read the chart since he said the chart proves that OLED screens are more expensive than LCD but the charts shows the opposite.

I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.

Really? No closer than 5 years ago? I think you haven't been paying attention then, since both LG and Samsung are ramping gen 8 factories as fast as they can to build OLED HDTVs.

No they aren't. They are maybe building Gen 8 factories to maybe produce OLED TVs. Samsung has, in fact, announced no plans to build OLED TVs at all. LG has mumbled about producing their 31" this year for a ton of money. I'll believe it when I can buy it.

And on this note, Sony and Samsung are REDUCING capital expenditures on LCD (presumably to allow for increased investment in OLED).

They are taking profits from the JV instead of leaving money in there. Sony is most assuredly not moving to invest in OLED production. Samsung is maybe toying with that. The proof will be when they do it, not when they talk about it.

I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.



No they aren't. They are maybe building Gen 8 factories to maybe produce OLED TVs. Samsung has, in fact, announced no plans to build OLED TVs at all. LG has mumbled about producing their 31" this year for a ton of money. I'll believe it when I can buy it.

Yeah, because lots of companies build and outfit 5 billion-dollar factories for producing OLED and then never make them. Why can't you simply admit that today's outlook for OLED isn't the same as it was 5 years ago? I suggest you read the Gabelli investment report on Universal Display with stock price targets of $75 this year, $95 for 2012, and $120 for 2013. All of those recommendations are based on the ramping predictions of OLED over that time, and affect Universal Display directly since they own almost all of the patents around OLED and the phosphoresent materials.


They are taking profits from the JV instead of leaving money in there. Sony is most assuredly not moving to invest in OLED production. Samsung is maybe toying with that. The proof will be when they do it, not when they talk about it.

So I guess the 2.2 Billion they spent last year to build the new gen 5.5 OLED plant that's coming online in the next two months (that will ramp monthly OLED screens of cellphone size by a factor of 10) doesn't count as "doing it"?

I have an HTC Droid (same screen as Nexus One). If you think those screens are remotely in league with the iPhone 4 screen, I have a bridge to sell you.

Now you're modifying your argument. You initially stated that OLEDs were more expensive than LCDs and now when shown to be incorrect, you suggest they're not comparable (even though they're the same size screens on cellphones). If I dig up pricing on the new Samsung Galaxy S2's screen (that Engadget just said is one of the best displays they've ever seen), and the pricing is comparable will you stop dissembling and backtracking on your positions?

This thread started 5 years a go. In the very first post is this statement. "At present, OLED displays are largely restricted to mobile phone use, but it is likely that large OLED-paneled televisions will replace PDP and LCD TVs in a few years." I don't see large OLED TVs any closer to production now than 5 years ago.

It's funny because it's true. :D

OLED TV is one of those things perpetually 4 or 5 years in the future until it eventually shows up or doesn't, like SED.

BTW Samsung did not say it will be PRICE competitive. OLED has a good chance of competing in TV with 200% premium in 2014, looking at the 2011 TV model pricing structure.

What else would they have been referring to? OLEDs are ALREADY better than LCD so what other than price competition could they have meant? And the other link I provided had LG predicting OLEDs would be cheaper than LCD.

For those interested, here is the Engadget review of the Samsung Galaxy S2, a new phone that uses an SAMOLED+ OLED screen.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/28/samsung-galaxy-s-ii-review/

A snippet from it:

The Galaxy S II's screen is nothing short of spectacular. Blacks are impenetrable, colors pop out at you, and viewing angles are supreme. This would usually be the part where we'd point out that qHD (960 x 540) resolution is fast becoming the norm among top-tier smartphones and that the GSII's 800 x 480 is therefore a bit behind the curve, but frankly, we don't care. With a screen as beautiful as this, such things pale into insignificance. And we use that verb advisedly -- whereas the majority of LCDs quickly lose their luster when you tilt them away from center, color saturation and vibrancy on the Galaxy S II remain undiminished. It is only at extreme angles that you'll notice some discoloration, but that's only if you're looking for it and takes nothing away from the awe-inspiring experience of simply using this device.

Whether you're pushing it to its limits with movie watching or just tamely browsing the web, the Super AMOLED Plus panel inside the Galaxy S II never fails to remind you that it's simply better than almost everything else that's out there. For an instructive example of the contrast on offer here, take a look at our recent post regarding the LG Optimus Big's upcoming launch in Korea. The pattern on that handset's white back was so subtle on our desktop monitor that we completely missed it, whereas when we looked at the same image on the GSII, it looked clear as day. Maybe that doesn't speak too highly of the monitors we're working with, but it underlines the supremacy of the display Samsung has squeezed into the Galaxy S II.

We'd even go so far as to say it's better than the iPhone 4's screen, purely because, at 4.3 inches, it gives us so much more room to work with. It's almost impossible to split the two up in terms of quality of output, they're both top notch. Notably, however, that was also true of Samsung's original Super AMOLED display, the one that graced the 4-inch Galaxy S, and by now you must be wondering if there's actually anything significant enough in the new S-AMOLED technology to justify appending that "Plus" to its name. The short answer is yes, and it's all in the pixels.

So when can I expect to buy a 55" for $1500?

So when can I expect to buy a 55" for $1500?

My guess is 2015.

How do you do that projection with G5.5 ramping up only now and LG's supposedly 31" screen at $9000 in 2011? Do you know what is the annual cost down or optimal cut of G8 or G5.5? Or you're just saying it because u couldn't care less when 2015 is here? I don't even think we'll get 70" LCD at $1500 in 2015 even when sharp's G10 selling one at $3000 TODAY

BTW I have a gentleman bet with rogo that we will see $5000 32" next Christmas. We will likely be able to remind each other in 18 months :) I can tell u how I get that projection.


What else would they have been referring to? OLEDs are ALREADY better than LCD so what other than price competition could they have meant? And the other link I provided had LG predicting OLEDs would be cheaper than LCD.
So your basis is that in order to be competitive it must be cheaper? And you stay in high cost US? (I don't) Just from you believing LG's word so unreservely we can already guess you are probably 25 or below :)

My guess is 2015.

My borderline certain is "not a chance in the universe of that happening in 2015."

That said, I look forward to seeing this Galaxy II S display. It sounds awesome.

My guess is 2015.

That isn't a guess, it is pure wishful thinking.

It is dubious if we will even have 55" OLED in 2015. If we do, it will certainly be $5000+.

That isn't a guess, it is pure wishful thinking.

It is dubious if we will even have 55" OLED in 2015. If we do, it will certainly be $5000+.

For wishful thinking it seems a lot of people are similarly-minded to me.

http://www.google.com/search?q=oled+price+competitive+with+LCD+2015&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Including Barry Young:

http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-oled-television-compete-with-lcd-tft-technology/

For wishful thinking it seems a lot of people are similarly-minded to me.

Including Barry Young:

http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-oled-television-compete-with-lcd-tft-technology/

So? He doesn't work for anyone producing OLED TV's. He is just a promoter parroting other info. Promoters always give optimistic projections.

The manufacturers making predictions 5 years ago, predicted OLED TVs common in 5 years. If their predictions were correct, we would already have OLED TVs.

LGs famous quote for 2016 also said they would have a 20"+ TV in 2010.

They failed to deliver on that. If they can't even predict one year in the future what makes you think they can nail estimates 5 or 6 years in the future?

Absolutely none of the past estimates have worked out, things like SED get pushed for years, only to collapse. OLED won't collapse because multiple companies are working on it. But it really isn't even on the market yet in real TVs.

To go from not on the market to priced at $1500 for 55" in 4 years isn't just wishful thinking, it is being completely out of touch with reality.

First they have to make it to market, then they price can start coming down at a reasonable rate. Expect similar to they Plasma dropped in price over time. It wasn't 2 years from hitting the market to $2000, it was more like 5 years.

It looks like 2012 will be the first year for 40" OLED TVS to hit the marke, count on 5 more years to semi competitive.. So maybe a 55" for $1500 in 2018...

I would like to have a OLED TV, the characteristics are great for a TV, but wishing won't making it appear faster. It will get here when it gets hear and the track record for these things indicate we always get optimistic projections from the manufacturers. Just ask Canon about SED.

Including Barry Young:

http://www.oled-tv.asia/when-can-oled-television-compete-with-lcd-tft-technology/
So I guess u are misled by this guy Barry Young. This is a name I will remember 18 months later for misleading "marketing" info.

It is more likely that we will see 10m OLED tablet than 2m OLED TV next year. And 10m OLED tablet is already a stretch. 5.5G fab is more suitable for 32" TV. I'm hopeful for 2012 ramp of 8G but mass production of >32" TV is definitely unlikely in next 18 months.

The Olympus XZ-1 photo-camera - review - (http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_xz1_review/) has a 3inch OLED monitor, Click (http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Digital-Camera-3-Inch-Monitor/dp/B004HO59LK) for larger imago and other views.

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy9/8mile13/542a97d4.jpg

Nice-looking camera... OLEDs are going to be in pretty much everything.

So I guess u are misled by this guy Barry Young. This is a name I will remember 18 months later for misleading "marketing" info.

It is more likely that we will see 10m OLED tablet than 2m OLED TV next year. And 10m OLED tablet is already a stretch. 5.5G fab is more suitable for 32" TV. I'm hopeful for 2012 ramp of 8G but mass production of >32" TV is definitely unlikely in next 18 months.

I think the 5.5 gen fabs are going to be used primarily for cellphone and tablet-sized screens, but I agree they could be used for some smaller TVs as well. The gen 8 fabs coming from LG and Samsung are where the TVs will come into play I think, starting mid to late next year.

More on this discussion, an article from June last year:

http://www.plusplasticelectronics.com/consumerelectronics/oled-televisions-to-be-ready-for-the-market-in-2011-14912.aspx

MBraun, a supplier of processing tools to leading display firms, reveals that recent orders suggest its customers are on track to deliver commercial OLED televisions to the market in 2011.

The German company provides automation and production tools to OLED display makers including Samsung and LG, which have reportedly been ramping up production for OLEDs recently, as covered in +Plastic Electronics Volume 2, issue 6.

Announced scale-up plans have been for smaller screens though, suitable for smartphones and cameras. Samsung announcing its new facilities will be able to produce 30 million 3-inch screens per month, for instance.

However, MBraun's orders from the electronics manufacturers suggest that they have television manufacturing in mind.


Scale-up solved

One of the barriers to the television market has been increasing screen sizes in production. Display makers have been reticent about revealing how this has been overcome. However, MBraun sales manager for flat panel applications, Daniel Karecovsky, says that the solutions have been found.

Karecovsky remarks: 'The job of scaling up is one for our customers, which they are adapting to currently available equipment. These steps have already been taken, to produce screens up to 42" in size.'

LG is increasing the availability of its 15EL 9500, a 15-inch display (already available in some parts of Europe) in 2010, while Samsung is believed to be ahead of its South Korean competitor in terms of commercial OLED development.

And Karecovsky suggests that the firms will be ready to sustain significant manufacturing for OLED televisions next year too.

'We know that they're currently putting they're[sic] systems in place to manufacture televisions on a large scale, although there are still some improvements to be made,' he adds.

"MBraun, a supplier of processing tools to leading display firms, reveals that recent orders suggest its customers are on track to deliver commercial OLED televisions to the market in 2011."

What's significant about this is that no one is on track to deliver commercial OLED televisions in 2010. And that's significant because this is the kind of hype suppliers always put out, but almost never yields any reality.

I think the 5.5 gen fabs are going to be used primarily for cellphone and tablet-sized screens, but I agree they could be used for some smaller TVs as well. The gen 8 fabs coming from LG and Samsung are where the TVs will come into play I think, starting mid to late next year.
Yes but 8G fab won't be online until AT LEAST 2H12 for Samsung. And that is ONLY if the 5.5G fab is a success. 8G is not a certainty though it is likely IMHO.

As for LG, though it talks alot but the fact is that it has a 3.5G fab and supposedly ramping 4.5G, but Samsung has >90% market share. Go figure.

Industry promoters etc can claim 100" OLED for all I care but if the fabs are not pumping, they will have to spew screens out of their a** :) I hope Barry Young has a big a**

Yes but 8G fab won't be online until AT LEAST 2H12 for Samsung. And that is ONLY if the 5.5G fab is a success. 8G is not a certainty though it is likely IMHO.


I don't think the 5.5 gen is even close to being in doubt. Samsung is already selling as many cellphone-sized OLEDs as they can make and the demand is still far outstripping supply.

You answered your own question here. Samsung is not going to sell 360m OLED mobile display next year.

So OLED tablet success will be important unless Samsung want to try selling quantity $5000 32" TV :)


And Samsung is producing 3 million cellphone-sized AMOLEDs per month now and the already-paid-for and newly-built gen 5.5 factory is coming online in the next two months and will be ramping that production by a factor of 10 (with slight delays from the Japan earthquake/tsunami since some needed equipment shipments are delayed). So they'll be making 30 million/month. And that's just Samsung, not counting LG, AUO, etc who are also in the OLED game.

I didn't realize I asked a question in the section you quoted. :-)

But, be that as it may, what cellphone manufacturers wouldn't switch to OLED if given the chance (by Samsung's (and LG's) large ramping of gen 5.5 OLED)? I'd think any increase in production will be snatched up as greedily as it is now. And I agree tablets will need to start using OLEDs as well (which I believe they will).

well the first couple generations of cosumer sized oled television
screens ain't going to be cheap.

remember when plasmas first came out, they were $15-20k

that's where the waiting comes in, when does the price drop
low enough that most people can afford them

crazy people on this forum will be the only ones willing to spend that kind of dough

Probably a ridiculous question at this point, but can we expect 56" 3840x2160 panels soon, or the OLED technology still has problems with very big screens?

Probably a ridiculous question at this point, but can we expect 56" 3840x2160 panels soon, or the OLED technology still has problems with very big screens?


Ya totally ridiculous, but it did make me stop and think.

+1

I hope its not ridiculous.

+3

I see that the resolution he's asking for is a 2x2 1920x1080 screen (Four 1080 HD signals on the same screen). I guess I'm wondering the following:

1) What use is it as a TV if no one broadcasts in that resolution?

2) Do any monitors do that resolution now, and if so what are they used for (broadcast television production, etc)?

3840x2160 would have potential value right now for gaming or as a dual-use PC monitor. The resolution would ensure that lower resolution 1080P content could scale easily--just treat a 2x2 pixel square as a single pixel.

In the longer term, I believe HDMI 1.4 works with 3840x2160, so devices that display static images in a slideshow could take advantage of the extra resolution (and static images are where it'd be most noticeable). It's even possible that 1080P content could be upscaled to 3840x2160 in much the same manner 480i DVD content is upscaled to 1080P right now.

That said, it'd be a pretty niche product at best.

Displays that show off higher resolutions than existing video sources are already useful today. It's not a massive gain, but it's a gain with the right scaling electronics. And for passive 3-D, the potential is gigantic.

could movies be recorded or transferred like br to this resolution?

See the Red One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company) movie camera.

Check out this thread for quad HD:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19879679#post19879679

From the WSJ 5/17/2011:

"So far, researchers haven't figured out a way to deposit the organic material over the large surface of a TV-sized screen with the speed required to build millions of units. "That is the most critical issue for OLED TV mass production," Mr. Ro said.

In the 1990s, display industry researchers were grappling with a similar problem in LCDs. At that time, the only way to evenly disperse liquid crystal was to let it seep in vapor form between two sealed pieces of glass, a time-consuming process.

At the 2001 SID meeting, International Business Machines Corp. researchers unveiled a dispersal method for liquid crystal that became known as "one drop fill." The idea revolutionized LCD production and, coupled with advances in the size of glass, made possible cost-efficient production of large-sized LCD-TVs.

The search for a similar advance to produce bigger OLED screens faces a major technical constraint. While only one coating of liquid crystal is needed in an LCD, an OLED screen actually takes three organic materials, one each for red, green and blue, the colors from which all other colors are formed on video displays.

The difficulty lies in aligning the OLED material so that colors are accurate across a large area. Just like liquid crystal was back in the 1990s, OLED material today is deposited in vapor form in a vacuum across a substrate and masks are used to align the three layers of material.

That technique works fine on screens the size of cellphones, but the masks tend to sag unevenly when pulled across larger surfaces. The result is that the OLED material is distributed imprecisely, creating mashed up colors or dead spots on a screen. "Everybody is working on this, all the big names," Mr. Ro says.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281504576327150841224440.html#ixzz1Mad2ja Ho (subscription required)

So it's a newspaper article, and it's wholly and highly incomplete. He notes this is "the biggest problem" but it's obviously not the only problem. We've discussed the voltage problem as well. it's important to understand -- no matter how much you want this technology to become real -- that until these manufacturing issues are solved, there will not be large OLED TVs. And while we'd all like the problems to be solved soon, they might not be solved for years, if ever. FED technology had manufacturing issues that were always right around the corner until decades of research and billions of dollars were just abandoned. Plasmas nearly suffered a similar fate (less investment, but very close to 'never happening').

It's also true that absent the aforementioned revolutionary idea in 2001, maybe giant LCD TVs don't happen. Or they don't happen for somewhat more years.

Not every engineering problem is solvable. And one thing that's clear from this article, is that whoever the reporter talked to didn't even bother mentioning nonsense like "ink jet style printing" of large OLEDs which has been much hyped and never developed into anything.

What I am saying -- as I've said before -- is that you need to actually hear about the breakthrough in manufacturing or else you're not going to see the big OLED TVs. And seeing a billion OLED screens for cell phones is not some kind of indicator that the TVs are coming.

I think most on this thread understand that there are engineering problems to be solved before we see large screen TV's. However, the big difference between your projections and mine are the implications if Samsung or LG start building a Gen 8 fab. You seem to think they might build a fab of that size for tablet sized displays while I think that such a fab only makes sense if they have solved the problems for large screen TV's.

We'll see...nobody has yet announced a Gen 8 fab, though both LG and Samsung have hinted strongly that they expect to make a decision by the end of the year.

Slacker

I'm actually slightly more correct here. They will build a fab for tablet-sized displays that uses the largest substrates they can figure out workflow for. I'm not saying that's "Gen 8"-sized glass per se, but it's larger than what they have now. The reason I know this is because current fabs are inadequate to meet the demand for phone/tablet screens already and the potential demand is something on the order of 10x what's currently being consumed (obviously, OLED can take some share in phones, and obviously the tablet market is growing massively and OLED has zero share currently).

I'm not sitting there with the operational engineering group, so I am not privy to what the magic substrate size is, but it's not some 5.5G piece because there are steps to manufacturing that could be done on larger substrates (especially for 10-inch tablet displays) and handling more and more small pieces of glass hasn't proved to be a winner even when, for example, the substrate could match the size of a finished product 1:1 (as it could with some old substrate sizes and some current LCD TVs).

And, yes, if Samsung announces a Gen 8 fab and actually breaks ground, I'll perk up a bit. If LG announces a Gen 8 fab, I'll probably laugh. LG, I believe, shows off these TVs to keep up R&D and posture. But I doubt very much they have any plans at all to mass manufacture OLED TVs before 2015.

And, yes, if Samsung announces a Gen 8 fab and actually breaks ground, I'll perk up a bit.

Start perking.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-invest-48-billion-oleds-2011

Samsung says that they will invest 5.4 trillion won ($4.8 billion) on OLED factories this year.

A couple of months ago there were reports that Samsung plans a Gen-8 pilot line for OLED TVs that will produce 4000 55" OLED TVs monthly.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-plans-gen-8-pilot-production-line-oled-tvs

Samsung plans to build a Gen-8 pilot production line for OLED TVs, according to recent reports from Korea. They want to produce 55" OLED panels, and the pilot line will be able to produce 4,000 such panels monthly. Samsung will use the same building as used in their upcoming 5.5-Gen production plant.

Start perking.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-invest-48-billion-oleds-2011





http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-plans-gen-8-pilot-production-line-oled-tvsFrom your link:

"Perhaps Samsung will indeed build this plant during 2011."

It may be a little early for perking.

From your link:

"Perhaps Samsung will indeed build this plant during 2011."

It may be a little early for perking.

No building of a plant is required, apparently, as they are using the same new gen 5.5 that came online this month and is already producing screen (two months early, in fact).

They want to produce 55" OLED panels, and the pilot line will be able to produce 4,000 such panels monthly. Samsung will use the same building as used in their upcoming 5.5-Gen production plant.

Everything about Gen 8 is still rumors. Samsung and LG have confirmed nothing.

Slacker

Please stop linking OLED hypester sites as source of news. I know they are excited and you are excited. But they are hypesters. I know there are rumors of Samsung starting an 8G production line. And I know there are proto rumors of LG doing that. But this is currently nothing but smoke. When there is a press release or an announcement associated with earnings that our man Specuvestor parses, let me know, until then this is more and more hype. And OLED has a decade of hype, and to date, <10,000 TVs ever sold, all of which were 11" Sonys. Yawn.

And OLED has a decade of hype, and to date, <10,000 TVs ever sold, all of which were 11" Sonys. Yawn.
An Engadget article claimed that Sony execs were "surprised" that the 11" didn't sell so well and I thought REALLY???! Your surprised? Apparently i'd make a better Sony executive than that guy, I would NOT have even produced it. I'd go with a 37" TV with a disclaimer that it is new technology and i bet it would sell.

An Engadget article claimed that Sony execs were "surprised" that the 11" didn't sell so well and I thought REALLY???! Your surprised? Apparently i'd make a better Sony executive than that guy, I would NOT have even produced it. I'd go with a 37" TV with a disclaimer that it is new technology and i bet it would sell.

Yeah, it's shocking that a $2500 11-inch TV didn't sell at all, especially given the general market for 11 inch TVs is so freaking robust, huh? Never mind the fact that $2500 was buying a good 50-inch TV by then. It's a wonder that company doesn't make money hand over fist, isn't it?

An Engadget article claimed that Sony execs were "surprised" that the 11" didn't sell so well and I thought REALLY???! Your surprised? Apparently i'd make a better Sony executive than that guy, I would NOT have even produced it. I'd go with a 37" TV with a disclaimer that it is new technology and i bet it would sell.

Yeah, it's shocking that a $2500 11-inch TV didn't sell at all, especially given the general market for 11 inch TVs is so freaking robust, huh? Never mind the fact that $2500 was buying a good 50-inch TV by then. It's a wonder that company doesn't make money hand over fist, isn't it?

Hey, they're at it again, this time with 9.9 inch model (http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/24/sonys-new-oled-display-promises-higher-quality-images-glitch-f/)! Seriousy, I couldn't make this up if I tried :p:D

Hey, they're at it again, this time with 9.9 inch model (http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/24/sonys-new-oled-display-promises-higher-quality-images-glitch-f/)! Seriousy, I couldn't make this up if I tried :p:D

In fairness to Sony, this was some sort of technology demo. I admit, though, I don't get the purpose of showing off a small, low resolution display as a proof of concept of anything. Maybe if it could fold up and fit in a pants pocket and cost $10 to manufacture. But otherwise, not so much.

In fairness to Sony, this was some sort of technology demo. I admit, though, I don't get the purpose of showing off a small, low resolution display as a proof of concept of anything. Maybe if it could fold up and fit in a pants pocket and cost $10 to manufacture. But otherwise, not so much.

I thought the 11 inch model they brought out 3 years ago for $2500 was a technology demo. But why bring out a 10 inch model now? They already showed that they could manufacture something nobody would want 3 years ago.

If they want to show off, why not create something that a few rich videophiles would actually buy? Like a 55" IPS or super-LCD backlit with 5,000 led's and an equal number of local-dimmable zones?

Interesting update, even if it doesn't directly relate to OLED on TVs:

Apple COO (interim CEO) in talks with Samsung to acquire AMOLED for new iPad:

http://my.news.yahoo.com/apple-samsung-talks-over-displays-ipad-3-104003917.html

And if Apple wants it (and can make it cost-effective) at iPad sizes that also would help explain why the iPhone 5 was delayed a few months - to give Samsung's new gen 5.5 OLED factory time to ramp up (which it did - it came online early this month) to use AMOLED on the iPhone 5 as well.

This has been talked about back in march.

FWIW it is rumored that Apple asked CMI to develop OLED which made me excited about this sleepy stock. Unfortunately I had to relearn AGAIN the importance of TIMING. :(

And I totally agree Apple would be able to publicise OLED as if they invented it, just like IPS or gorilla glass :D

There are a few dynamics at play:

1) samsung delayed full 5.5G ramp by 2 quarters. Japan earthquake affecting raw materials supply or demand weak?

2) Talks of curved glass for new iPhone

3) comparative advantage if samsung tablet using AMOLED as well

4) speaks badly of LG and CMI ramp of OLED

In the article it says "Apple is known for its low-price policies". That is not true. It is MARGINS low as apple demand specs much more difficult to produce. This made me skeptical how "insider" this article is.

I thought the 11 inch model they brought out 3 years ago for $2500 was a technology demo. But why bring out a 10 inch model now? They already showed that they could manufacture something nobody would want 3 years ago.

If they want to show off, why not create something that a few rich videophiles would actually buy? Like a 55" IPS or super-LCD backlit with 5,000 led's and an equal number of local-dimmable zones?

Like I commented in another thread, Howard Stringer is now more Japanese than Japanese themselves. Kind of sad in that it reinforces Japan Inc's idea that foreign talents aren't a good idea.

Sony has lost its way big time. Doing everything but no coherence. The latest results probably use the earthquake for kitchen sinking:

"May 23, 2011 (SmarTrend(R) News Watch via COMTEX) --
Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE) revised its forecast for the full fiscal year ended March 31, 2011 today, now expecting to a report a loss of $260 billion yen, compared to its earlier forecast released in February 2011 for net profit of $70 billion yen.

The company decided to set aside reserves of $360 billion yen in the quarter to cover certain deferred tax assets in Japan. The company said that three straight years of net losses, combined with the uncertain business outlook in Japan following the March 11 disaster, prompted the decision to cover the deferred tax assets, which are credits that can be used to offset taxes in future periods.

The company said the natural disaster would subtract $22 billion yen from its sales and $17 billion yen from its operating profit for the year."

Interesting update, even if it doesn't directly relate to OLED on TVs:

Apple COO (interim CEO) in talks with Samsung to acquire AMOLED for new iPad:

http://my.news.yahoo.com/apple-samsung-talks-over-displays-ipad-3-104003917.html


A very weak rumor. Samsung has now released or announced tablets at 7", 8.9" and 10". None are OLED.

Right now everyone is looks for a competitive edge to stand out in the tablet space, if it was feasible, Samsung would be using OLED for that edge. It simply can't be done cost competitively at tablet sizes yet.

I would expect the first OLED tablet will be a Samsung at about 7".

Also if you read the original source it says:
"A Samsung Mobile Display spokesperson said he had not heard of such discussions with Apple."

An anonymous rumor that just makes no sense... It goes on the scrap heap with all the other anonymous rumors.

Ok, first of all, whatever is in iPhone 5 (or iPhone 4S as it might be called) has been locked in for months or more). It's not being discussed now. That's not how it works -- at all.

And while Apple might be discussing something for iPad 3, they are discussing several things, including much more advanced LCDs than are in iPad 2. One issue: You need to be able to promise 50+ million int he first year. If not, then thanks for playing. So I'd say OLED is not on the table, articles notwitstanding.

Work permit (unrelated to what I've written so far in this post), you are missing the point, the thing they just showed off at SID will never be manufactured. It was a demonstration of something specific. The 11" they sold was a real product, just not an interesting one. It was a "demonstration" in some really broad definition of that term, but the thing at SID was literally a technology demonstration, not something that will see the light of day. The size was probably not chosen for any reason other than ease of demonstrating the concept.

Ok, first of all, whatever is in iPhone 5 (or iPhone 4S as it might be called) has been locked in for months or more). It's not being discussed now. That's not how it works -- at all.

And while Apple might be discussing something for iPad 3, they are discussing several things, including much more advanced LCDs than are in iPad 2. One issue: You need to be able to promise 50+ million int he first year. If not, then thanks for playing. So I'd say OLED is not on the table, articles notwithstanding

Samsung's current production capabilities are 6-8 million screens a month and by the end of this year will be more than 10 million OLED displays per month. No problem hitting 50 million per year. And this time next year they will be at 30-40 million per month. All part of the gen 5.5 4-production-line ramp they've been planning and paying for since last year.

Work permit (unrelated to what I've written so far in this post), you are missing the point, the thing they just showed off at SID will never be manufactured. It was a demonstration of something specific. The 11" they sold was a real product, just not an interesting one. It was a "demonstration" in some really broad definition of that term, but the thing at SID was literally a technology demonstration, not something that will see the light of day. The size was probably not chosen for any reason other than ease of demonstrating the concept.

Got it. You mean, for example, they have been able to develop an oled using "self aligned top gate" technology which may be exciting because with this technology the channel length of TFT becomes short, making it easy to deal with large screen size. (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20110524/192036/) Hope I was wrong and they don't actually try to sell one.

Samsung's current production capabilities are 6-8 million screens a month and by the end of this year will be more than 10 million OLED displays per month. No problem hitting 50 million per year. And this time next year they will be at 30-40 million per month. All part of the gen 5.5 4-production-line ramp they've been planning and paying for since last year.

You are confusing two things. iPad3 cannot use phone-sized screens, it needs 10-inch screens. Samsung's ability to make 400 million OLED screens for phones per year -- which I find highly unlikely by the way as that would satisfy something on the order of 100% of the entire smartphone market -- is irrelevant to making 10" OLED screens for iPad3.

That said, I can see how my post was completely unclear on the fact I was discussing two separate issues (1) the speculation around whether Apple was in discussions regarding a part for iPhone 5 -- which they could not be as that part has been sourced months ago and is not an OLED screen in all likelihood and (2) the speculation around whether iPad 3 would use an OLED screen -- which it almost certain cannot since Apple will need a minimum of 50 million such screens commencing in March of 2012 and perhaps as many as 100 million and no one has shown the capability of producing even 100,000 of such a screen.

I'd like to see OLED TVs just as much as everyone but for mobile, OLED still saps battery faster than LCD for web applications, does it not?

For iPad3, more interested in "Retina Display" resolution than OLED.

You are confusing two things. iPad3 cannot use phone-sized screens, it needs 10-inch screens. Samsung's ability to make 400 million OLED screens for phones per year -- which I find highly unlikely by the way as that would satisfy something on the order of 100% of the entire smartphone market -- is irrelevant to making 10" OLED screens for iPad3.

The same size substrate can be used to make 10" displays.

That said, I can see how my post was completely unclear on the fact I was discussing two separate issues (1) the speculation around whether Apple was in discussions regarding a part for iPhone 5 -- which they could not be as that part has been sourced months ago and is not an OLED screen in all likelihood and (2) the speculation around whether iPad 3 would use an OLED screen -- which it almost certain cannot since Apple will need a minimum of 50 million such screens commencing in March of 2012 and perhaps as many as 100 million and no one has shown the capability of producing even 100,000 of such a screen.

They don't need that many at the outset. They'll sell that many over a few YEARS. They just need steady production that can keep up with demand. Hell, Apple has only sold about 15 million iPads TOTAL over the last two years since it was introduced, and about 50 million iPhones over their entire sales history. So where do you get this idea that they need 50-100 million devices already produced to even start selling?

http://www.tipb.com/2010/04/08/50-million-iphones-sold-35-million-ipod-touches-85-million-iphone-os-devices/

iPad 3 will sell 50 million devices in the first 12 months easily. Probably more.

The same size substrate can be used to make 10" displays.

They don't need that many at the outset. They'll sell that many over a few YEARS. They just need steady production that can keep up with demand. Hell, Apple has only sold about 15 million iPads TOTAL over the last two years since it was introduced, and about 50 million iPhones over their entire sales history. So where do you get this idea that they need 50-100 million devices already produced to even start selling?


It is a completely silly rumor and your are really grasping at straws trying to rationalize it.

iPad numbers were and still are supply constrained.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110406PD206.html
"Based on a conservative estimate, Apple is likely to take delivery of 4-4.3 million units a month, or a total of over 12 million units, of iPad 2 tablets in the second quarter, said the sources."

If they weren't supply contrained, 50 Millions appears to be an easily achieved number annually for iPads.

In case the simple math isn't obvious. A 9.7" iPad screen is about 9 TIMES the physical area of a 3.5" cell phone screen.

So 50 million iPad x 9 = as much substrate as 450 Million cell phones.

When Samsung has OLED capacity of about 500 million cellphone screens then you can consider iPads as a remote possibility if Samsung wants to forget the rest of the industry including its own phones...

Apple is most likely to try OLED on the iPhone first where the substrate volumed needed is much lower and it would be much less risky.

If Apple is interested in Anything from Samsung for the next iPad it would be second source for LCD screens like the new PLS alternative to IPS.

The search for a similar advance to produce bigger OLED screens faces a major technical constraint. While only one coating of liquid crystal is needed in an LCD, an OLED screen actually takes three organic materials, one each for red, green and blue, the colors from which all other colors are formed on video displays.

The difficulty lies in aligning the OLED material so that colors are accurate across a large area. Just like liquid crystal was back in the 1990s, OLED material today is deposited in vapor form in a vacuum across a substrate and masks are used to align the three layers of material.

OK, I don't get this are they looking for cost reduction so much that they have ignored traditional lithography?

After all LCD screens use Red resist, green resist, blue resist, plus a black matrix resist and they have very few issues. Yes typical resist processes are messy, the equipment is expensive, but wouldn't it make more sense than trying to reinvent the wheel?

from what i've read, it sounds more likely we will have ipads with qled screens
before we'll have any oled ipads

It is a completely silly rumor and your are really grasping at straws trying to rationalize it.

iPad numbers were and still are supply constrained.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110406PD206.html
"Based on a conservative estimate, Apple is likely to take delivery of 4-4.3 million units a month, or a total of over 12 million units, of iPad 2 tablets in the second quarter, said the sources."

If they weren't supply contrained, 50 Millions appears to be an easily achieved number annually for iPads.

In case the simple math isn't obvious. A 9.7" iPad screen is about 9 TIMES the physical area of a 3.5" cell phone screen.

So 50 million iPad x 9 = as much substrate as 450 Million cell phones.

When Samsung has OLED capacity of about 500 million cellphone screens then you can consider iPads as a remote possibility if Samsung wants to forget the rest of the industry including its own phones...

Apple is most likely to try OLED on the iPhone first where the substrate volumed needed is much lower and it would be much less risky.

If Apple is interested in Anything from Samsung for the next iPad it would be second source for LCD screens like the new PLS alternative to IPS.

I am actually skeptical of the 50m iPads annual projection. Reminds me of the netbook projection not so long ago :) 2Q is launch of ipad2 so the SELL-IN figure (for inventory stocking) will be very high. I think more realistic is 50m tablets over the next 12 months considering that PC volume peaked at 200m and notebook growth slowed at over 100m, vs handset volume peaking at 1.2b

That said I agree the most probable outcome will be LCD iPads and OLED iPhone over next 12 months, if ever. Samsung will have OLED tablet. The RUMORED schedule shipment is a bit puzzling this year with ipad3 and iPhone 4S / 5 both coming end of year. I would think iPhone 4S launch later this year with 4G LTE launch next year make most sense and ipad3 make a normal refresh cycle next year as well, considering supply chain constraints.

The RUMORED schedule shipment is a bit puzzling this year with ipad3 and iPhone 4S / 5 both coming end of year. I would think iPhone 4S launch later this year with 4G LTE launch next year make most sense and ipad3 make a normal refresh cycle next year as well, considering supply chain constraints.

That iPad3 one, is just the rumor mongers packing together weak rumors, that one was originally a zero source (and zero sense) guess by John Gruber.

http://daringfireball.net/2011/02/the_next_six_months

Gruber has some decent sources, so when he mentions something from his sources, it is pretty accurate, but this time, he was guessing based on nothing but a whim and people picked it up as a serious rumor.

I agree that is another nonsense rumor. Ipad 3 will be an early 2012 release.

"I am actually skeptical of the 50m iPads annual projection."

Be skeptical.

But it's going to happen.

^^ maybe for ipad3 but not next 12 months IMHO, especially with ipad2 being an intermediate upgrade and supply chain issue.


That iPad3 one, is just the rumor mongers packing together weak rumors, that one was originally a zero source (and zero sense) guess by John Gruber.

http://daringfireball.net/2011/02/the_next_six_months

Gruber has some decent sources, so when he mentions something from his sources, it is pretty accurate, but this time, he was guessing based on nothing but a whim and people picked it up as a serious rumor.

I agree that is another nonsense rumor. Ipad 3 will be an early 2012 release.
my info/rumor comes from Taiwanese and Korean supply chain. But I usually take it with a pinch of salt, especially for apple. They are the only one infamous for NOT ramping production before launch, so as to ensure secrecy.

I am discussing iPad 3, which will ship a minimum of 50 million units in its first year.

Well you would think the competition would heat up later this year and beyond.

Apple would also have to offer compelling reason for a lot of iPad 2 owners to upgrade, to get those kinds of volumes.

Not saying it won't happen but the tablet market is still taking shape.

Well you would think the competition would heat up later this year and beyond.

Apple would also have to offer compelling reason for a lot of iPad 2 owners to upgrade, to get those kinds of volumes.


The double resolution LCD that many are expecting will drive a lot of upgrades.

from what i've read, it sounds more likely we will have ipads with qled screens
before we'll have any oled ipads

Is that because you've seen so many full-color QLED screens? There aren't any, outside of a tiny 4" prototype in Samsung's lab, that was just created a few months ago and is the first full-color QLED (and looks horrid). QLEDs also have no lifetime to speak of, and there is zero production capacity in place for it as it's still being developed and nowhere close to manufacturing. The time from the lab to production is many years. It's been 10 or more for OLED and will be the same for QLED if it ever happens.

One reason it may not ever happen is that QLEDs use toxic metals like cadmium. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them when the industry has invested more than 10 Billion on OLED production, which is green and uses no toxic materials at all, and is already on millions of devices. And is rapidly ramping into white lighting as well as displays.

iPad 3 will sell 50 million devices in the first 12 months easily. Probably more.

How do you make such a prediction when the first and second iPads have sold 15 million in almost 2 years?

I'd like to see OLED TVs just as much as everyone but for mobile, OLED still saps battery faster than LCD for web applications, does it not?

Depends on background/colors used, and whether they're using the phosphorescent OLED materials or not.

@pdoherty, your sources of information suck.

"By the release of the iPad 2 in March 2011, more than 15 million iPads had been sold". That was one year, well less. April 3, 2010 to March 13, 2011 with a staggered global rollout -- i.e. slow -- and no 3G models at launch.

The first full quarter of iPad 2 sales has been constrained by overwhelming demand, the product is not available in many countries, there was a massive earthquake/tsunami in Japan that affected the supply chain and it's safe to conclude that sales will be well north of 5 million iPads this quarter and probably approaching 10 million. Please check back with me in July for the accuracy of this as Apple's quarter ends in June.

@pdoherty, your sources of information suck.

"By the release of the iPad 2 in March 2011, more than 15 million iPads had been sold". That was one year, well less. April 3, 2010 to March 13, 2011 with a staggered global rollout -- i.e. slow -- and no 3G models at launch.

The first full quarter of iPad 2 sales has been constrained by overwhelming demand, the product is not available in many countries, there was a massive earthquake/tsunami in Japan that affected the supply chain and it's safe to conclude that sales will be well north of 5 million iPads this quarter and probably approaching 10 million. Please check back with me in July for the accuracy of this as Apple's quarter ends in June.

And how does even 5 million iPads in a quarter (3 months) spell a need for 5 millions screens a month?

And how does even 5 million iPads in a quarter (3 months) spell a need for 5 millions screens a month?

More than one person has already mentioned they are supply constrained. Do you know that means? It means they could sell many more if they could build them. They haven't even finished introducing it all countries yet because they simply can't build enough.

Why do you have so much invested in the silly OLED iPad rumor? It is just a false rumor and you treat it like gospel, trying to rationalize it at every step.

iPad 3 will be LCD, no ifs,ands or buts. It will be LCD. Drop it and bring the topic back to something actually related to OLEDs.

I'm sort of done explaining this to you because I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll give you one last go...

It's May of 2011. This is the first full quarter of iPad 2 sales. iPad sales have been growing every quarter since the launch of iPad (with the notable mention that all Apple products tend to spike in the Christmas quarter and fall back in the first calendar quarter and Apple is no different here, so I'm talking about trend lines in the context of other tech products and Apple products), with a growth rate that might be described as superb.

The low end of analyst estimates for this quarter is above 5 million, but since I'm not a professional Apple watcher, I can't tell you for example whether the more accurate forecasts are those at 7-8 million or those farther north. I can tell you they sold 4.7 million iPads last quarter, iPad2 was not for sale across most of the globe, Apple describe its inability to meet demand as "the mother of all backlogs" and there is not a shred of evidence that the device has gotten much easier to acquire this quarter despite many more countries of availability. Apple stores still sell out shipments on the day they are received often and Apple employees still can't buy at the discounted price.

Let us simply conclude that if nothing different occurs than is already happening, that the second year of iPad -- the one that commenced approximately around iPad's launch -- will result in 25-30 million shipments. This is the kind of straight-line, not overly bold extrapolation that a kid with 6th-grade math skills could produce. There is no guarantee that such sales will in fact result, but just comparing the first quarter's 3+ million sales to the almost certainty of 100% year-over-year growth this quarter will represent, the notion of year two doing 30 million iPads is not far fetched at all.

Since we are discussing iPad 3, we are discussing the 3rd year of the device and while, again, growth may stall organically, competition may dent growth, any number of things might happen, Apple is not going to sit here and plan for anything other than continued growth of iPad sales into 2012 and beyond. Because of this, they are likely forecasting a minimum of 25 million iPads to be sold in it's second year and a minimum of 40 million in its third year. The way Apple buys and sources components, however, is not based on minimums. It's based on a series of scenarios and if you can't meet all of the scenarios, you are not chosen as a supplier.

Since there are any number of scenarios involving iPad 3 sales of 50 million units -- or more -- and since, in fact, those scenarios are likely, any screen suppliers for iPad 3 will be required to demonstrate the capability to source 5 million screens per month to get a contract as the iPad's screen supplier. While the contract may be divided between multiple suppliers -- in fact, it almost certainly will be -- it will not likely be divided across multiple technologies since Apple would then have to sell iPads with different screens for different dollar amounts and that seems an unlikely point of differentiation on a product that already suffers from SKU proliferation.

As discussed previously I think the financial constraints of SDI is a main issue for SMD ramp up of OLED. I think it is likely that Sammy will be taking over more control of SMD from SDI:

"Samsung SDI is down 10% today on rumors that SDI may consider divestment of SMD
stake to raise capital to be used for CAPEX of the solar business it acquired from Sammy last Friday.

While my analyst believes the likelihood of SMD stake sale within this year to be unlikely, as Sammy did NOT take the unsubscribed shares during the rights offering in March, allowing SDI to remain a significant shareholder with more than 30% ownership in SMD (current pro-forma SDI shareholding 36%), while SMD's internal cash-in-flow (EBITDA) will be W1.7 tril this year, and the 8G ramp-up will take more time, reducing the required capital for CAPEX.

Remember, Samsung announced total of W5.4 tril in OLED this year."

Some PhoneArena item today implies the 5.5G OLED line is open ahead of schedule

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsungs-shiny-new-OLED-display-factory-opens-for-business_id19213

Well, more than implies, it says it's open and ahead of schedule and phone customers should be delighted.

The implications for TV continue to not exist, but I'm sure fanboys and girls will find them anyway. Anyway, it's good news for Galaxy II S hopefuls. That phone seems very very hot.

The implications for TV continue to not exist,

One step at a time. We were never going to get a Gen 8 fab before we got a Gen 5.5 fab so this is just another in a chain of events that needs to happens before a TV becomes reality.

Next up is getting sufficient yields to make tablet and larger sized displays a reality.

Slacker

Slacker, that's a fair point.

Some PhoneArena item today implies the 5.5G OLED line is open ahead of schedule

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsungs-shiny-new-OLED-display-factory-opens-for-business_id19213

Well, more than implies, it says it's open and ahead of schedule and phone customers should be delighted.

The implications for TV continue to not exist, but I'm sure fanboys and girls will find them anyway. Anyway, it's good news for Galaxy II S hopefuls. That phone seems very very hot.

Seems samsung is having some qc problems with their Galaxy II s AMOLED tinted yellow on one side (http://mobile.engadget.com/2011/05/30/is-your-galaxy-s-iis-display-yellow-on-the-left/). And they get blue-tinted (http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1065122) when viewed at an angle. Its a useful reminder that there are kinks to be worked out even with a 4.3-inch screen size.

Yet more speculation -- probably informed -- that iPad 3 will not use OLED.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/01/rumor_apple_certifying_components_for_third_gen_ipad.html

The only way the iPad 3 gets an OLED display is if we start hearing about another Gen 5.5 plant from Samsung....and construction would need to start now.

Slacker

Is that because you've seen so many full-color QLED screens? There aren't any, outside of a tiny 4" prototype in Samsung's lab, that was just created a few months ago and is the first full-color QLED (and looks horrid). QLEDs also have no lifetime to speak of, and there is zero production capacity in place for it as it's still being developed and nowhere close to manufacturing. The time from the lab to production is many years. It's been 10 or more for OLED and will be the same for QLED if it ever happens.

One reason it may not ever happen is that QLEDs use toxic metals like cadmium. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them when the industry has invested more than 10 Billion on OLED production, which is green and uses no toxic materials at all, and is already on millions of devices. And is rapidly ramping into white lighting as well as displays.

well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.

Further commentary backing my post above. Honestly, the below is not affirmative enough on the topic, but it should more or less prove the point.

From Digitimes:
iPad 3 unlikely to adopt AMOLED panels
Rebecca Kuo, Tainan; Jackie Chang, DIGITIMES [Wednesday 1 June 2011]

Market rumors that Apple hopes to use AMOLED panels for iPad 3 have been dismissed by industry sources as the capacity of AMOLED panels is still too low. Hence it would be unlikely for firms to meet the large demand from Apple. South-Korea based Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) announced its 5.5G facility will begin operations for AMOLED panels two months ahead of schedule, according to industry sources.

Taiwan-based panel makers pointed out that Samsung brand tablet PCs have not all adopted AMOLED panels. Only its Galaxy S II smartphones feature AMOLED panels, hence, it is unlikely for iPad 3 to adopt AMOLED panels. Industry observers indicated that demand for small- to medium-size AMOLED panels has been increasing, therefore, causing a shortage. The production might not catch up with the schedule of Apple's iPad 3. It is more likely for Apple to adopt AMOLED panels in products after iPad 3.

In addition, SMD current dominates the AMOLED market with advanced technology. It is unlikely for Apple to adopt AMOLED panels when there is only one supplier since Apple usually prefers more than one source.

ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out.

you would see Samsung tablet with 7" or 10" OLED screen next 12 months. But I agree capacity ramp will still be too small for iPad3 next 12 months. Anyone's guess after ipad3 though considering the politics involved as well.

My sense is that the pissing contest over mobile phone patents between Apple and Samsung will be resolved one way or the other. But regardless, Apple spends something on the order of $10 billion annually with Samsung and I find it hard to believe that Samsung wants anything other than to grow that business in any and every way possible.

well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.

You're WAY off, IMO (on section I bolded above). In fact, in TODAY's updated report on PANL (Universal Display) from Gabelli analysts, they believe we'll be seeing tablet OLED displays by 2012. (source: Gabelli analysts, June 2nd report on Universal Display)

http://powerusers.info/misc/OLED_tablets.JPG

well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.

The other thing you're not addressing is that qleds have almost no lifetime to speak of, use toxic materials and are not even past the drawing stage yet. If you thought (I corrected you in my last post) tablet-sized OLED screens were 5 years out you must believe qled screens are at least 10 out.

No one is planning on mass producing QLEDs, so it's kind of irrelevant -- as usual -- what the claims around them are. This is the same story over and over.

As for OLEDs in tablets, if the figures in the excerpt pdoherty linked are to be believed, it fully explains that there was never a chance iPad 3 would use an OLED display because even Samsung + LG could only theoretically supply the necessary quantity of displays and that's if Samsung decided not to use OLEDs in its own Galaxy Tab line, which was not going to happen -- giving the stuff to Apple first.

If we see Samsung successfully double capacity in 2012 to the point where they can make 65 million 10" displays (note that it's listed as "either/or" which is another problem) and LG reaches 10 million 10" display capacity in 2012, the notion of OLED for iPad 4 in 2013 gets less far fetched. That's assuming, of course, those OLEDs do something that the equivalent 2014 LCDs don't do in terms of battery life, brightness, contrast, resolution, et al. Something Apple can market.

I suspect iPad 3 will have a meaningful bump in display quality via LCD. But time will tell. In the meantime, again, all this is amazing news for those who want OLEDs in their phones and means that regardless, Samsung should not hit constraints supplying itself for Galaxy II S. Samsung has to start actually selling decent numbers of tablets for the rest of that story to get more interesting.

You're WAY off, IMO (on section I bolded above). In fact, in TODAY's updated report on PANL (Universal Display) from Gabelli analysts, they believe we'll be seeing tablet OLED displays by 2012. (source: Gabelli analysts, June 2nd report on Universal Display)

http://powerusers.info/misc/OLED_tablets.JPG

The other thing you're not addressing is that qleds have almost no lifetime to speak of, use toxic materials and are not even past the drawing stage yet. If you thought (I corrected you in my last post) tablet-sized OLED screens were 5 years out you must believe qled screens are at least 10 out.

No one is planning on mass producing QLEDs, so it's kind of irrelevant -- as usual -- what the claims around them are. This is the same story over and over.

As for OLEDs in tablets, if the figures in the excerpt pdoherty linked are to be believed, it fully explains that there was never a chance iPad 3 would use an OLED display because even Samsung + LG could only theoretically supply the necessary quantity of displays and that's if Samsung decided not to use OLEDs in its own Galaxy Tab line, which was not going to happen -- giving the stuff to Apple first.

If we see Samsung successfully double capacity in 2012 to the point where they can make 65 million 10" displays (note that it's listed as "either/or" which is another problem) and LG reaches 10 million 10" display capacity in 2012, the notion of OLED for iPad 4 in 2013 gets less far fetched. That's assuming, of course, those OLEDs do something that the equivalent 2014 LCDs don't do in terms of battery life, brightness, contrast, resolution, et al. Something Apple can market.

I suspect iPad 3 will have a meaningful bump in display quality via LCD. But time will tell. In the meantime, again, all this is amazing news for those who want OLEDs in their phones and means that regardless, Samsung should not hit constraints supplying itself for Galaxy II S. Samsung has to start actually selling decent numbers of tablets for the rest of that story to get more interesting.



well all i was doing was posting what i read on the qled thread. i am certainly no expert in this field. i would love to have oled ipads in a year but
there is so much conflicting info about what samsung is or is not doing with
their next gen oled fab that i don't know who is correct.

well optimists like you on the qled thread have a different opinion. ipad size oled screens, which i would love to have, are at least 5 years out. manufacturing process for qleds sounds less complicated and according to pedro, there has been a lot of r & d already done with this technology.Maybe they are optimistic, but for qled to succeed in a wider market than just Korea or the US they have to get rid of toxic heavy metals like cadmium.

Didn't know this until recently, but cadmium is illegal in Japan and several other countries. You can't make a product that can't be imported to major markets like that.

"...there is so much conflicting info about what samsung is or is not doing with
their next gen oled fab that i don't know who is correct..."

There is conflicting information about what Samsung is doing. None of that changes the fact that any iPad introduced in 2012 simply cannot be based on OLED.

How do you make such a prediction when the first and second iPads have sold 15 million in almost 2 years?

Apple released some numbers at WWDC:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/07/ipad_sales_reach_25m_milestone_apple_on_track_for_8m_this_qu arter.html

25 Million in 14 months. On track for an 8 Million quarter.

Apple released some numbers at WWDC:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/07/ipad_sales_reach_25m_milestone_apple_on_track_for_8m_this_qu arter.html

25 Million in 14 months. On track for an 8 Million quarter.

Yep, and while there is plenty of time for this tendline to decelerate, it's also possible that iPad (and other tablet) infrastructure is going to catch up over the next quarters and years (e.g. iCloud, other iOS features, OnLive, AirPlay) to keep this phenomenon accelerating.

I'm one of those who believe tablet computing is beginning to crowd out desktop computing. That doesn't mean it's eliminating it -- by no means will that happen in the next 10 years. But it's going to be the "good enough and often better" substitute for millions of people in the coming years.

Shall we take bets on whether iPad 4 has an OLED display? Because that's actually a somewhat interesting bet.

Shall we take bets on whether iPad 4 has an OLED display? Because that's actually a somewhat interesting bet.

Very low odds of it happening even for iPad4.

Apple doesn't change screens on a annual basis. The pay big bucks up front to make sure the tooling/assembly lines are ready to roll in volumes, it really doesn't make sense to do this for a single model year.

Which is why when everyone was saying HD screen for iPad 2, I said not going to happen.

I think there is chance that next year sticks with the current resolution, if that happens I guess iPad4 could be OLED but I doubt it.

Ipad3 could be the double res LCD screen (2048x1536) and if it is, I am certain they will carry that same screen over to iPad4.

Ipad5 maybe??

Very low odds of it happening even for iPad4.

Apple doesn't change screens on a annual basis. The pay big bucks up front to make sure the tooling/assembly lines are ready to roll in volumes, it really doesn't make sense to do this for a single model year.

Which is why when everyone was saying HD screen for iPad 2, I said not going to happen.

I think there is chance that next year sticks with the current resolution, if that happens I guess iPad4 could be OLED but I doubt it.

Ipad3 could be the double res LCD screen (2048x1536) and if it is, I am certain they will carry that same screen over to iPad4.

Ipad5 maybe??



i bet not going to happen. my most optomistic prediction is that we're still 2-3 years out from oled tablet screens. and why would sammy let apple have it first if they are the only manufacturer?

@guidry, good point, it does seem almost certain iPad 3 will have some sort of Retina Display. That makes iPad 4 a very unlikely candidate for a big display change.

@wally, I was more thinking that by 2013 Samsung and LG could possibly supply both Samsung and Apple. But that could still be beyond the capacity of both if the tablet market grows as predicted. Maybe iPad 5.

looks like this has a better chance of being on ipad like devices by next year rather than oled


Now this is pixel density... .8-inch 1280 x 1024 LCD panels and a 2048 x 1536 panel in the works that the company claims can deliver visuals nigh-indistinguishable from the real world.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/08/r...-powered-by-p/

More info on SMD ramp and with 8G pilot

"- Utilization rate for 5.5G A2 line in Jun: 70% with a capacity of 16,000 sheets per month

- SMD to increase 5.5G A2 line capacity to 72,000 sheets per month until 4Q11

- SMD to additionally expand 5.5G A2 line capacity to 96,000 sheets per month until 2Q12

- SMD to start a pilot production in 8G V1 line from 4Q11"

What's interesting, I guess, Spec, is that 100% of that 5.5G capacity seems directed to phones.

Though I think samsung galaxy s will be best selling android model, but 100k per month of mother glass is a lot :D I do think the ramp up includes tablet demand for samsung

I don't. Unless they plan on not really selling tablets. You can't sort of have enough screens for your tablet but sort of not.

There ought to be about 200 mobile phone screens per 5.5g substrate. At ~100k substrates per month, you are looking at 2MM mobile phone screens per month, or 25MM annually. Samsung might be able to absorb that product on its own for Galaxy II S/Galaxy III S. And even if not, they will have no problem finding customers at HTC and ZTE, looking to demonstrate high-end models.

Keep in mind Galaxy S sold 10 million units in just 7 months. I just don't see where you find tablet capacity in this 5.5G production. Again, unless you assume they aren't really selling any tablets. And I don't buy that as Samsung's business plan.

The Playstation Vita is a 5" OLED. 7" OLED tablets will come soon.

I don't. Unless they plan on not really selling tablets. You can't sort of have enough screens for your tablet but sort of not.

There ought to be about 200 mobile phone screens per 5.5g substrate. At ~100k substrates per month, you are looking at 2MM mobile phone screens per month, or 25MM annually. Samsung might be able to absorb that product on its own for Galaxy II S/Galaxy III S. And even if not, they will have no problem finding customers at HTC and ZTE, looking to demonstrate high-end models.

Keep in mind Galaxy S sold 10 million units in just 7 months. I just don't see where you find tablet capacity in this 5.5G production. Again, unless you assume they aren't really selling any tablets. And I don't buy that as Samsung's business plan.

You are off by an order of magnitude. 200 screens per substrate x 100K is 20 million handset displays a month. Add in another 3-4 million a month from current Samsung capacity and you end up with capacity for well over 250 million 4.3" AMOLED displays a year. That is more than enough capacity for the smartphone market in early 2012.

In addition to specuvestor's listed capacity, it has been rumored that Samsung plans a second Gen 5.5 fab (A3) that would begin its ramp in 2012.

One thing we do agree on is that the potential tablet market is huge. However, I also think it is very price sensitive. IMO, the first round of non-Apple tablets missed this point entirely and it is only now that we are seeing competitive offerings that have any chance of selling. The fact that $499 is basically a price ceiling for a tablet is going to impact the introduction of AMOLED's in tablets....there is likely going to be a premium even when SMD ramps up their yields.

Slacker

I missed rogo's iPad3 volume projection as ipad2 and he missed a zero. We're square :)

Good point on the OLED tablet price which would likely be at least 50% more expensive I guess.

I think the A3 line is part of the ramp phase and not a new fab per se.

I think the A3 line is part of the ramp phase and not a new fab per se.

Oops, I must have misinterpreted some of the info. Are they using A3 to refer to capacity beyond the 100,000 substrates currently planned?

The Gen 8 fab though is still the big one though. Hopefully, we'll soon hear what approach Samsung plans to get around the various problems with large OLED displays/substrates.

Slacker

I think so. IMHO $2.5b must be a really huge 5.5G fab :) IIRC there should be 4 lines.

Again it will depend on the demand take up of the fab. If a premium priced tablet is unsuccessful then I think the 5.5G ramp and 8G plan will be up in air. IMHO the next 12 months will be critical to whether OLED can make it mainstream, or a costly samsung mistake.

You are off by an order of magnitude. 200 screens per substrate x 100K is 20 million handset displays a month. Add in another 3-4 million a month from current Samsung capacity and you end up with capacity for well over 250 million 4.3" AMOLED displays a year. That is more than enough capacity for the smartphone market in early 2012.

There you go Slacker, good catch.

Rogo now believes Samsung is ramping up OLED production for the Galaxy tablet line, but also to allow it to sell OLED phone screens to companies like HTC, ZTE, etc.

It's going to be more than a little ironic, however, if Samsung is like "we have OLED tablets" and Apple is like "we have Retina Display tablets". And I wouldn't rule that out completely.

Buy Alert: Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL)
Another Winner in the OLED Revolution


In the April issue of The Sovereign Individual, I told you about the new, disruptive technology known at organic light-emitting diodes, or OLED. The revolutionary lighting technology has already begun a process that will usher in a radically new television experience, and then flood through all manner of consumer electronics, automotive electronics and even outdoor signage.

I’ve been keeping up with what’s happening in OLED. And just recently, Universal Display, an OLED company I’ve been watching intently, has seen its shares fall by nearly half.

That’s our opportunity to jump into the shares of what will clearly be a company that wins big in this technology revolution.

Action to take: BUY Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL) up to $40 a share.

Universal is a technology leader in OLED – with licenses for more than 1,000 issued or pending patents – and it holds a critical position within the industry. It is a primary supplier of the material that allows OLEDs to display colors.

All displays, whether they’re LED, LCD or OLED, rely on the combination of the primary colors red, blue and green to make all the colors that go into an electronic picture. Universal is particularly adept at the color green, making it a key cog in the process of fabricating an OLED display panel.

As you might recall from the April issue, the key difference between LED, LCD and OLED is that the first two require a light source behind the colors to make an image visible. OLEDs generate their own light. That negates the need for an independent light source, cutting the weight and power consumption of a device, and allowing display-makers to make displays that, literally, could be paper thin in the not-too-distant future.

But display makers need Universal in the mix.

The company’s phosphorescent colors – particularly green – are multiple times more efficient than competing fluorescent technologies, and the efficiency gives OLEDs made with phosphorescent technology longer life … which, in turn, brings down the price of making OLED … which, in turn, will increase demand for the technology.

Universal is tied to every major player in OLED today, including LG Display, the company we already own in the TSI portfolio for its exposure to the burgeoning OLED market.

Most importantly, it’s tied to Samsung Mobile Display, which effectively owns the market at the moment. Samsung Mobile is a private company, so owing Universal is one of the purest ways to gain exposure.

Universal and Samsung Mobile are currently in contractual talks about license renewal. Those negotiations have been going on for a while, and have hit some sticking points, likely related to royalty rates and such.

But an agreement will be reached. Industry reports indicate Samsung Mobile will launch a production line later this year to build 65-inch OLED TV screens – and in doing so it has reportedly designed phosphorescent green into the production. That would clearly benefit Universal.

Aside from Samsung Mobile, activity is increasing among a variety of tech companies in Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and China that are building OLED fabrication plants. I expect we’ll see a number of contracts with Universal come from those efforts over the remaining course of the years.

In recent weeks, investors have taken down Universal’s shares on concerns that some patent litigation in Japan could potentially impact patents the company holds in other countries. However, investors are misreading the results of that litigation.

But that has given us the opportunity to buy into a technology leader at a good price. As the Samsung Mobile contract reaches fruition, and as additional display-makers sign on with Universal, this company’s stock should rebound strongly … back towards the $60 range, at least.

For those reasons, and because I recognize that OLED will usher in such a revolutionary change to our everyday lives, I’m adding Universal Display (PANL) to our TSI portfolio. The stock trades right at $37.

Action to take: BUY Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL) up to $40 a share.

Until next time, stay Sovereign …

Jeff D. Opdyke
Editor, The Sovereign Individual



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sovereign Society Members-Only Website
http://www.sovereignsociety.com

Buy Alert: Universal Display (Nasdaq: PANL)
Another Winner in the OLED Revolution

I’ve been keeping up with what’s happening in OLED. And just recently, Universal Display, an OLED company I’ve been watching intently, has seen its shares fall by nearly half.

That’s our opportunity to jump into the shares of what will clearly be a company that wins big in this technology revolution.

All displays, whether they’re LED, LCD or OLED...

As you might recall from the April issue, the key difference between LED, LCD and OLED is that the first two require a light source behind the colors to make an image visible.I've got an idea. Why not back light a LCD display with a LED light source. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

I couldn't read any more. The author seems to be getting his understanding of LCD technology from Best Buy advertisements. What amazing things must he know about OLED. :rolleyes:

I also laughed that the stock is down by half apparently, but I'm only supposed to buy it till it appreciates another 7% or so. Sounds like a real powerhouse!

It is rare for a major company to make a commitment to a sole source for any component for a product that has high volumn. Until there are two or more sources that are in volumn production, Apple will not want only Samsung.

Think IPS. Or power pc cpu by motorola for those old enough.

Sometimes they got no choice, sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's alliance like Wintel or Dell/intel in the past.

Strategic decisions in business can make or break.

All true, spec, but Apple won't be single sourcing the iPad screen at this point. They have no competitive need to and billions of reasons not to.

They've been single sourcing from LGD and now moving to CMI and Sharp. Similarly they are trying to nurture CMI for OLED because for obvious reasons Sammy will fulfill their internal OLED demand first.

I actually think it is possible that the next iPad may be 2 screens technology, maybe retina black and OLED white iPad or iPhones.

But again depends on next 12 months how the market accept premium priced OLED devices.

They've been single sourcing from LGD and now moving to CMI and Sharp. Similarly they are trying to nurture CMI for OLED because for obvious reasons Sammy will fulfill their internal OLED demand first.

I actually think it is possible that the next iPad may be 2 screens technology, maybe retina black and OLED white iPad or iPhones.


I can't believe people are still flogging that brain dead rumor.

No way in hell will any iPad 3 have an OLED screen, iPad 5 at the earliest.

Also you clearly don't understand how Apple works, if you think they are going to have different types of screens in white ipads. :rolleyes:

"Sony & Toshiba to merge LCD & OLED divisions"

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1307629091

09 Jun 2011


http://www.flatpanelshd.com/pictures/streg.jpg



"According to Japanese Nikkei the two electronics manufacturers, Toshiba and Sony, are planning to merge their LCD and OLED production divisions to focus on production of LCD and in particularly OLED displays. The companies have not confirmed the rumor but Nikkei claims to have details......................."

@Guidry, I agree with you completely. There isn't any chance that the black and white iPads will have different screens. And there just isn't any chance at all iPad 3 will have an OLED screen. If Spec was referring back to iPad 3 there, he's thinking wishfully or mis-speaking. I fairly well showed that mathematically iPad 3 cannot have OLED screens (and that math was done more correctly). And the fact is, there would literally be one source on the planet at that point -- which after Fukushima is not happening.

hope Apple fans pay through their noses for the Oled screens sooner rather than later, for the same reason I'm glad Ipod made nand flash cheap as dirt for the rest of us, who buy mp3 players from e.g. samsung and pay 1/4 of the price for the same thing.

Actually, better, since my samsung sansa clip has been through the washing machine 5 times and still works...not to mention plays .Flac and acts as a USB thumb drive...no BS software necessary

In terms of Oled, let's hope Apple picks it up in one of their new toys so the mass production cost +quality issues can be fixed. Then the rest of us can enjoy quality tech and not be gouged for all our disposable income, and we can chuckle while we put our money into some good scotch and enjoy the deep blacks :)

I find it funny that Apple made flash cheaper for Samsung when they buy from Samsung....

But I think you mean Sandisk. :)

You are correct that if Apple adopts OLED at any point, it'll get cheaper for everyone. So to that end, it'd be a good thing for sure.

^^ I have no inside info but I think it is PLAUSIBLE to produce 1 mio OLED iPhones or even iPads white a month, depending on a lot of dynamics like demand for galaxy s products, yield rate etc. and not forgetting LG and CMI furiously trying to get into the bandwagen. Nonetheless the majority >80% will be LCD for sure. Apple has always been at the forefront of technology adoption, and sometimes too early in fact :) Personally IMHO these failures are why Jobs is competitive rather than idealistic now.


I can't believe people are still flogging that brain dead rumor.

No way in hell will any iPad 3 have an OLED screen, iPad 5 at the earliest.

Also you clearly don't understand how Apple works, if you think they are going to have different types of screens in white ipads. :rolleyes:
just to clarify: are you saying Apple never differentiate their white and black devices?

just to clarify: are you saying Apple never differentiate their white and black devices?

Apple is all about simplifying choice and supply chain, not making it more complex.

OLED for Apple will almost certainly start on the iPhone and it will be the whole lineup, not case color determining screen type.

I see iPhone 6 as the first OLED possability and iPad 5 as the earliest iPad possability.

But I would rather be talking about TVs than phones/tablets where I really don't care about OLED.

Apple is all about simplifying choice and supply chain, not making it more complex.

OLED for Apple will almost certainly start on the iPhone and it will be the whole lineup, not case color determining screen type.

I see iPhone 6 as the first OLED possability and iPad 5 as the earliest iPad possability.

But I would rather be talking about TVs than phones/tablets where I really don't care about OLED.

well oled will certainly come to phones and tablet displays before it
it's available as a retail tv screen. It's still several years out, but at this point in time, oled stiil appears to be the next great display tech for sets and other display devices. certainly with more legs than sed ever got.

I am giggling only because OLED has been 5 years away for TVs for the past 10 years. And everything we write seems to suggest the same... Let's hope Samsung does something ridiculous and makes some ludicrously overprice 50" TV so at least we can see if it even lives up to the hype. Cause right now I'm not sure it will, but I am sure that the plasma/LCD forces can't seem to take us over the last few hurdles with their technology. So my TV for the 2020s could really use some new technology.

Apple is all about simplifying choice and supply chain, not making it more complex.


Simplifying choice for the consumers is right. But not true if you are the supplier. One of the main reason Apple don't have numerous suppliers is because their components are difficult to manufacture. Their ASP is high but margin is excruciatingly low. Ask wintek, foxconn, catcher, LGD, etc. IMHO apple white has become a sub-brand itself so I'm not surprised if they differentiate it as a premium product.

I will take note of your forecast. Like rogo I tend to have pretty long memory :)

iPad2 had a simultaneous intro in black and white at identical prices. I suspect we'll see same with iPhone 5 (which is likely to be called 4S, but that's another matter).

Simplifying choice for the consumers is right. But not true if you are the supplier. One of the main reason Apple don't have numerous suppliers is because their components are difficult to manufacture. Their ASP is high but margin is excruciatingly low. Ask wintek, foxconn, catcher, LGD, etc. IMHO apple white has become a sub-brand itself so I'm not surprised if they differentiate it as a premium product.

I will take note of your forecast. Like rogo I tend to have pretty long memory :)

Having only one type of screen is also a simplification on the supply side for Apple. I also enables multiple sources for the same products. I read multiple rumors about Samsung becoming a second source for LCDs, which makes a lot more sense.

Having one type of screen simplifies the choice for the consumer, simplifies Apples advertising message, simplifies and makes the supply chain more robust.

It would be idiotic and anti-apple to split screen type based on color.

What I'd really like to see is reasonably priced OLED lighting. I'm redoing my kitchen and installing LED under cabinet lights. I suspect the OLED version, when it comes, will be thinner and the source of light more widespread across the fixture.

Hi,

Are there any 7 or 8 inch OLED digital photo frames available? I'm asking here because I don't monitor photography websites. Thank you in advance.

Hi,

Are there any 7 or 8 inch OLED digital photo frames available? I'm asking here because I don't monitor photography websites. Thank you in advance.

No. There is no full-resolution OLED of that size in any consumer product yet.

Just went back east for a week to visit my sister. She just bought
a Verizon, Sammy phone that she says has an amoled screen. About 4.5"
screen size. It looked good but not sure if it was an oled screen.

If it is an oled screen, don't think it will be more than 12-18 mos before it appears on an ipad.

If it's a Verizon phone, it could have an OLED. But we've explained several times why the 12-18 month time horizon for an iPad to have one is unlikely. iPad 3 can't possibly be OLED. iPad 4 in theory could, but the relationship between Samsung phones and iPad screens is tenuous at best, especially with Apple currently attempting to avoid buying anything and everything it can from Samsung.

Just went back east for a week to visit my sister. She just bought
a Verizon, Sammy phone that she says has an amoled screen. About 4.5"
screen size. It looked good but not sure if it was an oled screen.

If it is an oled screen, don't think it will be more than 12-18 mos before it appears on an ipad.

if its a galaxy phone then its super amoled (which is oled) . those screens are amazing.

if its a galaxy phone then its super amoled (which is oled) . those screens are amazing.


Yeah it looked real good. I could read it from 5' away.

these oled developments are pretty exciting.

I'd love to pick one of these up when they start shipping in September:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-PVM2541/

http://ws.sel.sony.com/PIPWebServices/RetrievePublicAsset/StepID/SEL-asset-257743/600x407

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.sony.jp/pro/products/PVM-2541/feature_1.html&usg=ALkJrhjnehzii5oxXXj90MV30zfcKbsHDA

Being able to display sources using the panels native (expanded) color gamut looks like a fun feature!
http://www.sony.jp/pro/products/PVM-2541/images/prod/PVM-2541_011.jpg

The PR on them suggested a sub-90-degree viewing angle,. Fine for a broadcast booth (I guess, not exactly ideal even there), but not that exciting in your house. Although maybe at 25" you'll be so close it wouldn't matter. $6100 seems rich for 25". You could buy two Sharp 70s. :)

The PR on them suggested a sub-90-degree viewing angle,. Fine for a broadcast booth (I guess, not exactly ideal even there), but not that exciting in your house. Although maybe at 25" you'll be so close it wouldn't matter. $6100 seems rich for 25". You could buy two Sharp 70s. :)

:rolleyes:

http://www.sony.jp/pro/products/PVM-2541/images/pdf/SPC_PVM-2541.pdf

Viewing Angle (with panel)
(Up, Down, Left, Right): 89 degrees, 89 degrees, 89 degrees, 89 degrees (contrast> 10:1, the Typical)

So, horizontal viewing angle would be 89+89 = 178 and the vertical viewing angle would be 178 as well (from the spec sheet). :p

I've never, ever seen a viewing angle defined that way. I speculated it might be when they announced this thing, but you've confirmed that. It's a genuinely bizarre way of defining it in an industry that uses terms like 178-degree viewing angle -- accurately -- for most displays.

No. There is no full-resolution OLED of that size in any consumer product yet.

Rogo,

There's talk Samsung will bring a "full sized" OLED tv within the next 3 yrs or so. This excerpt is from an article I saw a couple of weeks ago in the Korean press:


From a previous article:

Samsung is building a $3 billion LCD plant in southern China with production expected to begin in early 2013 as China is set to become the world’s biggest consumer electronics market, nudging past countries in North America.

``But the bottom line is that Samsung intends to tap into a large-sized OLED market eventually for TVs within the next three years. Its LCD business and facility in China will be tasked to meet local demand in China. That’s the strategy,’’ a fund manager in Seoul said.

I've never, ever seen a viewing angle defined that way. I speculated it might be when they announced this thing, but you've confirmed that. It's a genuinely bizarre way of defining it in an industry that uses terms like 178-degree viewing angle -- accurately -- for most displays.

I have seen it both ways a number of times and it is NOT very accurate for LCDs. IPS/VA LCDS both have the same meanigless rating and they don't behave the same and neither is as good as plasma/crt or OLED.

Rogo,

There's talk Samsung will bring a "full sized" OLED tv within the next 3 yrs or so. This excerpt is from an article I saw a couple of weeks ago in the Korean press:


From a previous article:

Samsung is building a $3 billion LCD plant in southern China with production expected to begin in early 2013 as China is set to become the world’s biggest consumer electronics market, nudging past countries in North America.

``But the bottom line is that Samsung intends to tap into a large-sized OLED market eventually for TVs within the next three years. Its LCD business and facility in China will be tasked to meet local demand in China. That’s the strategy,’’ a fund manager in Seoul said.

I'll believe it when I can buy it. No offense to some South Korean mutual fund manager, but the track record of those kind of predictions is terrible.

To date, there has been absolutely no commercially available OLED TV other than an 11" Sony that cost $2500. This... speaks.. volumes...

I'll believe it when I can buy it. No offense to some South Korean mutual fund manager, but the track record of those kind of predictions is terrible.

To date, there has been absolutely no commercially available OLED TV other than an 11" Sony that cost $2500. This... speaks.. volumes...


When will the sed displays be available?

Too right. I seem to remember LG promising a 15" OLED for Q4 2009 (!!). And then there's that 30-incher which is always 9 months in the future. Flying car.

Walt, at least you can buy the flying car!

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/stories/why-drive-when-you-can-fly-and-drive

That puts it ahead of the LG OLEDs.

Too right. I seem to remember LG promising a 15" OLED for Q4 2009 (!!). And then there's that 30-incher which is always 9 months in the future. Flying car.

Not exactly a flying car...

The 15EL9500 was released in South Korea and Europe, but was not released in North America.

The 31" model was only released in South Korea? So, now you know where to go buy a flying car! ;)

Also, the 25" 1080p Sony PVM-2541 will be available for purchase in September 2011!

The 31" model was only released in South Korea? So, now you know where to go buy a flying car! ;)


Do you mind showing a link with that info. I never read that the 31" was released anywhere, I am pretty sure that would have been big news on all the tech sites I read.

I am struggling to find any indications that the 31" has been released in South Korea or anywhere.

I am struggling to find any indications that the 31" has been released in South Korea or anywhere.

Yeah, I double checked and can't seem to find any either... So, I guess it's just been a model LG has been showing at trade shows for a while but hasn't actually released. :eek:

@Spec, funny thing is, I'm not trying to buy a videophile set this year. Too many bugs, glitches, etc. from every manufacturer and the videophile sets so far are either just a little better (Pansonic) or not better (Samsung). So I'm looking for something in the $2000-3000 range that I can buy and hang out with for 2-3 years. Samsung's stupid OLED plant allegedly can make 65" panels! This could tide me over if they ever get serious. :) (And if they don't, I would get a 65 or 70 in 2-3 years that's better than whatever's out today, costs less, and hopefully is less glitchy.)

If you look at what SLCD 8G plant has been cutting, then we can have a rough guesstimate what the OLED 8G (if it ever gets confirm) can cut optimally in future with approximately 120" diagonal.

Remembering our last discussion on IGZO, I have relatively long memory like I said :) , IGZO is real with Sharp using it for small/mid size panels probably for Apple's retina display

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=19560365#post19560365

I have no doubt Apple is working on a Retina Display iPad (although I'm skeptical about the 2011 rumors). I will say that the notion of Apple using Samsung OLEDs for any iPad, ever, seems pretty remote. By all accounts, Apple is trying to take it's $6 billion in Samsung component buying and reduce that as close to zero as possible.

Walt, at least you can buy the flying car!

http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/transportation/stories/why-drive-when-you-can-fly-and-drive

That puts it ahead of the LG OLEDs.

I stand corrected. :)

rgb32: I didn't know the 15" was released in Asia; I stand corrected there too.

Given that it's a studio monitor aimed at pro broadcasting / authoring, $6K for the 26" doesn't sound all that outrageous. Still beyond consumer pricing though.

It's tangential, but TSMC just taped out samples of Apple's next gen SOC for iPads/iPhones. This suggests that Apple is deadly serious about dropping Samsung as a supplier for everything. Whether it can pull that off or not remains to be seen, but it does mean that iPad will almost certainly not be going OLED until someone not named Samsung can produce enough OLED displays. That's a 2014 at the earliest kind of situation.

It also means that Samsung is finding its way out of $8 billion worth of component sales and while some of those will be replaced by other companies, this is really bad for business in the big picture. Someone at Samsung is probably mathing out the value of Galaxy phones vs. all this business vs. settling their patent disputes with Apple.

I would expect there to be a big move toward settling this at Samsung because they stood to double that business with Apple over the next 3-5 years in large LCD panels, OLED panels, continued growth in NAND flash, SOC fabbing, etc. As profitable as Galaxy phones are, they can afford to find some common ground with Apple on this to preserve a relationship worth north of $100 billion over the next decade.

This is part of an article I saw in the Korea Times a few days ago:

Samsung is fighting Apple in eight different courts in six countries, although it partially dropped the lawsuit against Apple in California.

Apple had sued Samsung in April, alleging that Samsung had copied the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad.

The iPhone maker had also filed for a preliminary injunction that would block the sale of Samsung’s products while the case is being resolved.

``The one clear point is that Samsung is firm about getting royalties from Apple in return for using our various telecom-related technologies,’’ said another source, asking not to be identified citing sensitivity of the issue.

``Although Apple is diversifying its procurement channels for key parts such as telecommunication chips, flat-screens and mobile applications to Taiwan and Japan-based firms, Samsung is still a very crucial supplier for Apple that Apple should not lose,’’ said a top-ranking industry executive.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2011/07/129_90641.html