Originally Posted by specuvestor
Yes that was the gist of KIS report. They are assuming a low capex migration from LCD to OLED, yet oxide-TFT OLED has never been produced, hence I remain skeptical of their capex numbers.
Think I posted this few months back as I remembered it was discussed way back with the thread starter Isochroma on (again) electric current transmission. But I didn't know IGZO is the same as Oxide TFT :P
The problem with analyst reports like that is, again, they use terminology they
don't even understand. And then they abuse it.
IGZO has basically not been used in mass production. Yet a bunch of analysts in a white-collar office in Seoul have concluded it's going to be cheaper than all other TFT-LCD production used to date. Production which has 15 years of learning curve benefits behind it.
This kind of magic-bullet thinking is an embarrassment. It would be one thing if they describe all of this as possible. But instead, they more or less describe it as done.
Finally, there is something amazingly tantalizing in the article linked:
"Although oxide TFTs will certainly benefit very large LCD panels and LCD panels of any size with high pixel densities, they appear to be an essential enabling technology for AMOLED displays of medium (that is, tablet) and larger sizes. That means Sharp may not be the greatest beneficiary of its own technology, but that would be nothing new in the history of display development."
Sharp might not be pursuing OLED on its own. But then again, Sharp wasn't pursuing 10" tablet screens either. Then Apple came along. Now suddenly, Sharp is not only pursuing the latter, but also using it as a catalyst to make IGZO real.
Apple can't move to OLED unless there is someone else besides Samsung supplying a sufficient number of OLED panels (because they need two sources, not because of the legal wrangling). But Apple could invest whatever was needed into Sharp to get OLED production to happen. If, of course, it wanted such a thing.