Originally Posted by irkuck
If that would be as trivial as you imply world would be already flooded with monster displays at low, low prices. What I am saying is that Sharp uses lower gen fabs to make big displays but there must be some other tricks playing to make them economically. These tricks are Sharp's secret. Otherwise everbody would be doing this.
Irkuck, I mean this gently, but you are failing Logic 101 here. You take a conclusion: "Other manufacturers are not making very large displays but Sharp is" and then decide... "therefore, only Sharp can do so economically". You decide this even though Sharp's method relies on outdated production facilities. This, after you used to argue Sharp entirely relied
on modern production facilities to achieve economics for very large displays (70s.)
You keep concluding that "it must be economics of Sharp" that allows them to do this. First, it's new plants. Then, it's secrets to old plants.
You ignore, over and over and over that it could be something else
. There might well be no secret (with respect to the 80s on 40 line, I'm fairly sure there is no secret actually). Sharp makes different choices than Samsung.
The possibilities you reject -- without evidence -- include:
1) That Sharp doesn't actually make money doing any of this
2) That Sharp chooses to pursue a market that Samsung, et al. find so small they ignore it
3) That Sharp makes money at this, but a margin below the target threshold of Samsung, et al.
4) That Sharp is the only one with ready access to the machines that make the color filters, LCD litho, et al. at 70" and up because of a special relationship with some 3rd party supplier
and countless other explanations. I'm no longer arguing with you on this point except to say that since you argued both sides of the very same coin, the probability is your explanation is completely in error, that Sharp has no miraculous technology even though we agree there is some amount of efficiency (that neither of us has been able to quantify I might add) from running the 70" panels in 6-up mode.
You are approaching absurdity here. If Samsung and LG could make 80s and 90s economically they would be doing this already just to statisfy their oversized egos.
No evidence supports this. This is your opinion. Yet LG surely can
mass produce 65" TVs and it doesn't even do that.
It is quite opposite: they were showing those TVs, they were even showing prices and they disppearing when Sharp started selling. They simply could not match the price.
Or they simply choose not to bother.
Even this year Samsung 75" edge-lit might be coming with price of 7 grands. This of course is much above Sharp so Samsung may postpone again. Now the question is why Samsung is not able to match Sharp pricing even with edge-lit?
Again, we do not agree on your conclusion. Your conclusion is "Samsung's price is X, therefore that's the lowest price they could achieve." My conclusion is, "Samsung's price is X, therefore they are not interested in the market."
They have plenty of 8G plants so they could stamp those 75". But they miss tricks which Sharp has.
I suggested above that perhaps the litho, etc. machinery is rare. There is no other "trick" to miss. If they have the machines to pattern the displays the sputter the LC material they can do this. If they don't, they don't. It's certainly possible that one or more of those machines is so rare or that Sharp has the only good model of the machine that can distribute the LC material across such large surfaces (keep in mind, readers, that distributing the LC material used to be the part of making LCD TVs that seemed like it would not be solved and would deny us TVs of much larger than 40").
First, the 8G investment is way, way down comparing the 10G. One can economically produce all kind of smaller sizes in 8G and add huge displays flexibly. The new chinese factory must be optimized for this. Their show of 110" is statement for this.
Or it's a demo, like the Sharp 100"+ demo of a few years ago.
Now, it you imply that Samsung could easily made 75" but just capriciously allows Shapr to be a leader it is plain absurd. Samsung has insatiable drive to be No. 1 and the fact it is not competing with Sharp means it does not have the required production chain which means likely it has its rocket science elements. For Samsung, in typical Asian way, being number 1 in all segments up to 55" and leaving the crown to Sharp must feel huge loss of face and affront.
Samsung has shown minimal/zero interest playing above 60". Why? Tiny market size
. Just because you perceive this huge market doesn't mean they do.
And now Chinese are showing 110" at 4K, Samsung (and LG) must be mad.
You see corporations as petulent children. I see them as profit maximizers.