Official 70"+ LCD thread - Page 29

This weeks BB newspaper add for Southern California included the Sharp 60" and not the 70"..

^^^and this means?

Just a quick note about multiple panel sizes on one mother glass. I am very familiar with the litho process for LCD, so as someone mentioned here, coating and develop in that process are very quick and there is no change in processing when there are multiple sizes on the same mother glass.

However, what you call masking (I call stepping) is where there might be a delay. Pixels on a 70" screen are larger than pixels on a 32" screen. The stepper has to adjust at lease for this size difference if it is doing multiple sizes. This could just be a camera adjustment or it could be a mask change. Each would take extra time and I suspect that each is required since edge features such as bonding pad layouts, power structures and the like will be different for differing sizes of screens.

TNG, that makes sense. In my speculations, I did suggest that there would be slowdowns (and yes, stepping sounds like the most precise terms). But what's not really clear is whether slowdowns there are very important.

LCD making is far removed from semiconductor making in that a bunch of things happen after the individual modules are cut that are quite big and messy. If I'm making a mess of ASICs or SOCs or whatnot, once I've cut the wafer, I can engage in a series of high throughput operations that lead to packaged, finished chips. Now, I'm not an expert on where the bottleneck is in modern semiconductor plants. Maybe it's stepping, maybe it's not.

But in LCD making, it's pretty likely it isn't because after cutting, there is filling, sealing, curing, all on a macro scale (chips are small, displays are big). Getting the LC material in a 70" display nice and even, sealing that whole module up, curing the seal and then doing whatever is necessary on the connector/backplane (which might be before or after some of that) strikes me as relatively ungainly, unwieldy.

If my speculation is right that "Herbie" or the constraint in the fab is actually post cutting (and part of that speculation is because of Specuvestor's belief, part of it is continued thinking about it), then even if stepping is slower than it could be, it technical might not be very important. So long as stepping doesn't become slower than fill/seal/cure/etc., it's not the constraint. And -- believe me this is where it gets confusing -- if something is not the constraint, the benefit of getting it done faster can be minimal, zero or even negative.

It's easy to fix negative, you just run fewer sheets through the earlier steps (accumulated work in progress inventory is not a winner). If it's minimal or zero, then you don't worry about it. You make sure enough WIP comes out to keep the lines at the end of the process fully utilized and try to optimize them. If the maximum throughput improves there, then you can start worrying about improving other parts of the manufacturing process.

But what do I know? Cnet did some hatchet piece over the weekend on how idiotic people with MBAs are.

[quote=Steve S;20709857]^^^and this means? I am not sure but I believe it sheds some light on the the total gross margin $ that sharp is able to obtain on the volume of 60" and 70" panels that they are currently able to sell given their current MSRP prices and might be indicating that their 60" models are generating more actual profit.

I'm not sure about more "profit" but it brings to doubt irkuck claim that they are producing 70" at massive quantity if they are producing more 60" in the next 12 months, as analysts predict. (though I think they underestimate 70" volume)

@Rogo, Irkuck thinks 732 is profitable due to the scale that he keeps alluding and I am the one that doubt the profitability. However I have no doubt the 70" 9 series will be profitable, but at the expense of how much market size shrinkage? Frankly nobody knows but everybody wants to know. And u are right WIP is a big issue in backend efficiency. You can't just pile them up and "microwave them later ready to be served"

@TNG stepping and masking are inter-related at the front end process. In any case front end is "relatively easier" (this is a misnomer for sure) once the process is tweaked properly and it is certainly much easier than semicon.

It is not happening because u obviously don't understand what I've been saying. You have a very textbook idea of economies of scale and demand does not suddenly increase because u make the widgets, like supply economics want u to believe. Your belief is a very standard, intuitive exam answer that satisfy layman curiosity but the real world is more complex and dynamic than we want to understand. (just look at all the AVS post on contrast, brightness and MLL. There's a short and simple answer and there is the correct answer. But what's appealing is almost always the simple answer)

So they don't make things below "profit", is that right? It happens in tech sector especially DRAM all the time. Global TFT has been unprofitable on a PnL basis for the past THREE quarters, coming 4. This is the longest I can remember. Like my fictitious dialogue I posted before, what would YOU do if u are the plant manager? Think about it (I hope u are a working person) instead of digging up textbooks. Let it stay idle and rot? Fire half the employees? Obviously like I said, Sharp made a mistake (too early in cycle) for Sakai plant and also high ASP Japanese are not going to have large screens, more so than the europeans u talk about. They have to make the best of the mistake. Sakai plant is not going to disappear overnight even if rogo is right and there is no demand at 70"+. Like Charlie Munger said, they just have to suck it up.

10G is a prerequisite for large size because of volumes creating cost down for components, which smaller fab cannot generate. It is NOT that they cannot make 70"+ efficiently based on the CURRENT cost curve CONSTRAINT. When BOM cost goes down u can be sure smaller fab can make them just as cheap if not cheaper, question is whether they want to do that and lose market share for other products, or build new 10/11/12G to cater to large size market.

However that may be changing as Sharp is partnering with Foxconn Taiwan and it's subsidiary CMI and is to provide 60"> panels in exchange for smaller budget LCD's and other glass for other devices - it was mentioned in Digitimes as a partnership to reduce cost and make them more cost competitive versus South Korea's Samsung/LG.

Lord, Irkuck, don't ever come work for me. Even if you're right, your reasoning here is bad. And I'm being kind.

""If, as rogo speculates, similar economy could be achieved with stamping multiple sizes on a glass sheet then there is no doubt others would be also at similar price point."

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. First of all, unless you can cut their motherglass in a way that has nearly zero waste, they can't do what you describe period. Second of all, you presume fully and utterly incorrectly that anyone else even concluded this market would exist at these prices in 2011 and planned accordingly. Third, you presume that people want to compete with Sharp (not a shred of evidence they do). Sharp can cut the 70s out of a 6 sheet with minimal/zero waste. That's clear. I haven't even suggested there is another efficient cut for Sharp.

I have speculated that others could generate an efficient cut out of a multi-display-size motherglass if they wanted to. Maybe you can show us how Samsung is cutting 40, 46, 50, 55, 60 and 65 without doing multiple sizes on a sheet? They of course aren't. It's not like holy cow Sharp just discovered you can do a 6-up of 70-inch panels and no one else figured this out. Quite the contrary, the industry has made some efforts to cut different sizes from the same panel.

But instead you keep resorting to "post hoc" arguments. For those of you not Googling, what Irkuck does is conclude "after this, therefore because of this". It's about the most common logical fallacy out there. A great example is "yesterday it rained, today I got a great parking space at the dry cleaner, therefore the rain got me a great parking space". Um, what? Of course they are unrelated, and more importantly, the former did not cause the latter.

Just because Sharp is making an selling an inexpensive 70" display doesn't mean they are able to do so because they are making them 6-up. It also doesn't prove a thing about the motivations of others not to make them.

Yes, it seems to logically follow that Sharp can make them 6 up without mixing sizes and that's therefore some special advantage. Except we've shown numerous reasons why it might not be a special advantage. You've also yet to show that mixed motherglass is somehow not common or more costly. It might well be less common or more costly, but we're waiting for you to show us why. I don't need proof in a web link. Just explain to me how doing mixed motherglass is, as you put it, "multiple times" less efficient.

"But this is not happening and others can only do 70"+ at multiple of Sharp price. Meaning their economic efficiency is multple times lower and this clearly can be attributed to the fact they do not have glass big enough to stamp multiple panels at a time. "

It absolutely could be that. Or it could be, um, not that.

The reason why your argument is so non-persuasive is you seem to think that the price of the Samsung and LG panels is somehow related to their production cost. It obviously cannot be. The LG and Samsung panels could be made as single panels on the smallest fab still in operation and not cost $10,000+. The price is simply not a function of production costs, it's a function of lack of interest in selling many.

I agree Samsung can't compete with Sharp at 70", but I believe it's for reasons you don't understand. Samsung has shown tremendous indifference toward building anything larger than 60". That's not just because they don't have a 10G fab. I'm quite sure one of their fabs would yield a nice even cut even its up 4-up of some panel.

And if it indeed proves true that mixing sizes on motherglass is not preferred currently by mfrs., what will never prove true in a billion years it that doing 6-up of a process that doesn't even produced finished goods is much more cost effective than doing a 4-up. We've already shown that a lot happens after cutting and that the plant bottlenecks are almost certainly there.

The reality is Samsung sees the largest-panel market as very small right now and if Sharp proves them wrong, they will suffer some losses of prestige and market share. So be it. But it's not like Samsung has, you know, shown interest in yet shipping 100K total units of 65" LCDs ever, total, globally. By contrast, I suspect Sharp is going to eclipse 100K 70" units in N. Amer alone this year.

That's a choice. The fab helps Sharp feel good about the choice, but by pricing at $3000 retail, they get to make it. By pricing at $13,000 retail, Samsung opts out. That's a choice too.

Does anyone have dates as to when the folowing will be out:

70" Sharp 3D sets (I think there are 2 models due)
72" LG
75" Samsung

I know there has been all this tech discussion based on cost but a little speculation on release dates and features would be interesting as well.

P.S. I have been to two Best Buys that have the Non 3D 70" Sharp for sale. THey both told me to wait for the Samsung as they have it listed in their department preview sheets. Both stores said this would sell for under $10,000 (closer to $8,000). This does not agree with the $13,000 price I have heard here. Anyone have any udated pricing information? NOTE: I know sales people can be wrong but two sales people from two different Best Buy's made the same statement so it must be based on some information from someone.

--Rocco--

"Rogo, I doubt if you would be able to run business employing somebody"

I have already done so on several occasions. So I guess you're wrong.

"How about LG 72" and Samsung 75"? It is absolutely evident they wanted to conquer the 70" segment. It seems their plans were derailed by Sharp."

You flat out don't get it. LG and Samsung do not care about that segment of the market. They like measuring their virtual man parts against each other, but they don't care about the business. LG has been "selling" a 72" since almost a year ago. How many globally? Certainly not 10,000. Samsung has yet to ship a 65" display in quantity anywhere.

If they cared about this market, they'd stop pricing over $10K. If you think they have to price over $10K because they don't have a 10G fab and that Sharp can sell at $3K because they do, then you're being unbelievably naive. There is absolutely, positively no correlation between the market prices of the respective displays and the actual internal cost to build them, with regard to the 3 mfrs. 70+ displays.

"I see contradiction with what you write above."

Only cause you aren't reading or because I mis-spoke somewhere. Ever since someone detected I had originally erred in calculating out the 10G glass vs. a 70" Sharp display, I've conceded that it could be done 6-up. Quite frankly, I didn't ever doubt it. I once tried the math and it didn't work, no doubt due to getting a dimension wrong somewhere and therefore having the numbers come apart.

"But what I say is that this does not keep for 70" at the price point which Sharp is able to do it. This business operates on razor thin profits. This means you can not mix any size with any other. Meaning that you have to stamp smaller sizes separately from bigger ones. You can possibly mix 60 and 65 but the price is moving up. Now, in the case of 70" one would have to mix it with smaller sizes, and it would not add up to the price point. There is absolutely no doubt if there would be a way of making 70" is smaller plants efficiently, LG and Samsung would be already there. These guys are very clever and and full of conquistadors fervor in pushing the Japanese out. But they can't, they are able to show 70"+ with price tag of multiple 70". This is not price higher by 20, 30 or even 50%. Thisis 3-5 times higher. Such difference means technology gap which in this case is obviously 8G vs. 10G. "

Honestly, blah blah blah, there you go again. You reason from the result without any proof. There is no reason why Samsung sells a 75" display for $13,000 other than utter disinterest in selling many.

The 8G fab from what I've read was designed primarily for 52" units. It could run then 2 wide by 4 deep. From what I can tell the 7G fab was designed for 40" and could run those 2 x 4 as well. That's the way they do things at Samsung I suppose. But the 8G fab could just as easily run 80" displays 1 x 2. And given the market value of 40" LCDs (Samsungs run for $650 retail in that size), it's pretty clear that if they sold 2 x 80 instead of 8 x 40, they'd make a lot more money even if they priced the 80" at $6000. A lot more money.

You're going to yammer on about how you can't just make 2 panels, but you'll still be wrong. The fact is the post cutting steps are all easier with fewer panels rather than more. And it's cheaper, to fill, bond, seal 2 panels that are big than 8 that are small (when you consider everything that happens after the glass is cut before you can buy the TV).

(I should note that I believe the 9G fab could produce big panels at 2 x 2 going the long way. And, in fact, it seems plausible they are going 2 x 3 for the 60" panels at that fab. It does not seem there is an optimized cut for 65" panels at that fab unless you used mixed motherglass. This, of course, again makes us ask: How are they making 65s? Mixed glass or using an older fab. Since the 65" is merely pricey and not insanely stupidly priced like the 75", it must be being priced to move in somewhat more volume. Since they can someone use old fabs or mixed motherglass and price competitively, they make a choice not to with the 75". Since they seem to suck very badly at delivering 65" displays we can conclude on one dimension irkuck is probably correct: Whether they used older fabs or mixed motherglass, they can't generate the kind of numbers they can on single-size motherglass at the newest fab. And by numbers I mean sheer, raw volume. )

I've long stated I'm uncertain about how much mixed-motherglass work is being done. What I'm 100% certain of is that you constantly fall into "after this, therefore because of this" reasoning on every point you make. And that's just not making your arguments persuasive.

" Saying they have 'lack öf interest in selling many' is an insult to them. If they make something they want to sell as many as possible and beat competitors. You can see it from any segment of industry they operate."

No, it's entirely consistent with the behavior of every company on earth. If you want to sell as many as possible, you don't price in such a way that 99% of the market is automatically foreclosed. Sharp wants to sell as many 70" TVs as possible. LG and Samsung most assuredly do not. So long as you keep misinterpreting the retail price of the Korean LCDs as a function of their production costs, you'll keep drawing the wrong conclusion.

70+" LCDs are not Galaxy phones.

"Arguments here are knotted. Having no 10G plant means being indifferent to big panel segment which stems from nonbelief this can be an overall a profitable segment. Samsung is right in this respect. "

So you believe there is no profitable market but you believe they are attacking the market with $13,000 displays that automatically no one really wants (yes, they will sell a few 1000 to Russian oligarchs, oil sheikhs and crazy American rich people)? Talk about knotted.

By all your logic, I'm of the opinion that Samsung can't really produce or sell 65s. And evidence seems to back that up to an extent. Yet they do pursue that market to some extent. Why? Because they believe there is demand there. If they believed the market existed at 75", they'd simply price at $6000-7000 (and perhaps move to 80"). They might even sell all they could make at that price. But they don't believe there is enough sales to care about.

And, sorry, but Sharp caught them flat footed. Sharp caught everyone flat footed. Sharp was dying at U.S. retail, plain and simple. 2010 was a freaking disaster. The wounded bear came back with one last massive charge. No one was prepared for $3000 displays at 70". Currently, LG and Samsung and Panasonic are basically pretending the Sharp doesn't exist and hoping consumers take their indifference as some sign of the quality of the Sharp or whatever.

I think it's amusing that you view Sharp's saving of its North American TV business as not smart. They invented a new category and will sell more 70" LCDs this year than competitors will sell at 65". They have even hurt Panasonic, which had been the big-screen leader by existing in Panasonic's segment and outdoing them on size.

IRKUCK, Thanks for the update.

Questions for you experts

When Sharp is not making 70" panels in their 10G Fab does anyone know what panel sizes they are making with it? Do they make mulitple sizes concurently in order to reduce or eliminate unused glass?

In 2010 both LG and Vizio were going to offer 72" panels in the US whiich AFAIK were going to be made in a new LG Fab. This did not occure and the reason I saw in a post stated that the yield of 72" panels that passed quality specs from their Fab was too low for the US market and I understand they are offering a small volume of 72" panels in Japan. Is this understanding correct?

Irkuck, I'm done arguing the same points. I'm going to state it finally: You are plainly wrong. The notion that Samsung's production cost for 70-inch panels is 3-5x Sharp's is plainly wrong. I proved how they could make 80-inch panels and sell them for $6000. Perhaps you need to re-read and understand the math. It's pretty accurate.

They choose not to. It's a choice. Period. This bizarre notion of yours that they have to stake out this market but then do so at utterly uncompetitive prices is just not worth commenting on anymore. They choose not to compete. If they wanted to compete, they could be in the universe. They aren't in the universe. And no matter how long you believe it, the 10G fab is not a 70-90% cost reduction.

You seem to understand the problem but refuse to acknowledge it: Outside of N. America there is virtually no 70+ market. Inside North America, they missed the fact that someone was going to nurture the one that could exist here. For the moment, they choose not to compete for it. Period.

Walford, I've been trying to figure out if they have a multiple-size motherglass cut going on there, but I can't determine it one way or the other. Clearly, the fab is not only used for 70" displays. It would be operating at maybe 10-15% of capacity if it were. It's also clear that Sharp doesn't have a 35" display, so some other cutting is going on.

If we determined it's mixed glass cutting, then honestly, the last 50,000 words of this discussion are redundant and, well, it's obvious who wins. If we determine that they just can't make mixed glass work well, then honestly, Irkuck's points are way more valid (something I've acknowledged about 10x) but it doesn't change his fundamental misapprehension of the marketplace. I don't know how to get the answer from Sharp, but I suppose one could try investor relations.

I believe LG sells their 72" in Korea and the Middle East. It might be on sale in Japan, but I've not heard that per se. It's clear they can't make many of them and are not very focused on fixing that problem. I will say the one I saw at CES was terrible compared to LG's other LCDs suggesting they don't really have the quality down at that size.

Several years ago I saw on a post drawings of the several different multisize patterns to be used on one of the vendors new FABs each of drawings utiilized the entire motherglass so there was not any waste after the cutting which was the first part of the process.
I also believe that with each new FAB generation that the unit manufacturing costs of same size panels goes down due to improved production equipment such as use of newer lower energy lazers being used in the cutting process.

So I reiterate, if that's currently the case, it further invalidates almost every point made by Irkuck, all of which rely on the following precepts:

The only way to gain economies of scale in LCD is through making an entire motherglass of same-size panels. Once you can make 6 per sheet, your cost of manufacture is 1/5 that of someone who can only make 2 per sheet, even if the 2 are made with no waste.

There are significant valid points in Irkuck's arguments surrounding these precepts, even though there are serious issues with the first one (in particular, the fact that the bottlenecks in LCD manufacture occur after the glass is cut into individual panels) and the second one is patently ridiculous.

(Although I'm going to fully admit I have no actual evidence that Samsung could process 80" panels in their 8G fab given that they have no actual way of cutting large numbers of 65" *or* 75" panels anywhere and therefore are doing something unusual to make those happen, I'm going to point out they could easily have chosen to do 2-up 80" displays at the 8G fab if they actually viewed the market as valuable. And we can certainly easily prove what the bill of materials is for those by taking each of them to be as difficult to produce as 4, 40" displays and assuming that at this point yield on 40" displays is nearly perfect, which it almost certainly is.

It's also worth noting that since Panasonic currently seems at best headed for 75" displays and Sharp is locked in at 70" and LG seems committed to 72", Samsung would then have a size no one could match and would cannibalizing some portion of 40" production, where it's unlikely they are making any money at all anyway. But I digress, let's keep pretending that the 65" can be sold for $5000, while the 75" somehow has to be sold at $13000. Or even $10,000, which is equally ridiculous.

And before I get another lecture about how these companies are so good at seizing market opportunities and are so this or that, I will cite a few examples of how stupid companies are, to remind readers that no company is infallible. And most, in fact, routinely act in ways that are against their self interest:

1) When the mortgage crisis in the U.S. was already exploding, Bank of America bought Countrywide, the worst mortgage lender in U.S. history, essentially doubling down on stupid loans.

2) When Intel was finally moving to Pentium successfully, IBM doubled down on its licenses to produce 486 chips and basically passed on Moore's Law and the future.

3) When memory was finally getting cheap, Bill Gates said publicly he doubted anyone would ever need more than 640K of RAM. (1024K = 1MB, 1024MB = 1GB, just for those of you who don't know what a K even if).

4) When AT&T was breaking itself up, it decided the entire U.S. market for cell phones was 500,000 subscribers, so it gave the cellular licenses to regional Bells in exchange for some other concessions from government, including exciting things like being able to keep making Touch Tone phones.

5) For you east coast folks, when a young hamburger impresario named Ray Kroc approached Tom Carvel about putting his ice cream into every McDonald's restaurant, an annoyed Carvel told him he'd never get anyway with his burger joints and walked away.

6) Upon seeing the success of the 10" iPad, Samsung decided that what the world really wanted was... a tablet that was just as heavy, but had a screen 1/2 the size. The 7" Galaxy Tab continues to be outsold by the iPad by approximately 10:1 (outsold, current data, please don't cite quarter or two old shipment data, since Samsung sell through on those remains terrible).

But clearly, it's impossible Samsung missed the fact that Sharp might create a 70" market at an affordable price because they are perfect and infallible. No company ever misinterprets market conditions and misprices something. Ever.)

Walford I have seen drawings of cuts few years back which includes mixed and also one size per motherglass. But such drawings are hard to come by nowadays.

Components are constantly being cost down, even during bad periods like now. But for apple to apple comparisons, component cost down usually affect all the panel makers so competitive edge is minimised, except for motherglass which is fab specific.

Based on this Merrill report Sakai actually produced 42" and moved to 60":
"The Kameyama No. 2 plant and the Sakai plant have, respectively, glass input capacity of 100K/month and 72K/month. Assuming LCD TV sales capacity of 15mn units of Sharp's own brand, external sales of just under 7mn units in 42inch terms would be needed to absorb both plants' production. In fact, however, it is not that simple. The Sakai plant's 42-inch panels are probably not costcompetitive at current forex rates, so that 72K must be allocated to 60-inch panels. The April-June 60-inch LCD TV market totaled approximately 130,000 units for the major makers, so that even assuming a growth trend from July onward, the standard case for the scale of demand in 2010 is likely to be 700,000 units for the full year." -28 Oct 2010

As for 72", just look at LG mass producing 72" before Vizio can even hope to have one as they get their panels from LG.

How long will it be before the Chinese make CHEAP 70+ TVs? Don't tell me they couldn't do it--there labor costs would be less than the Japanese and the Koreans.

TFT fab is not labour intensive. That's what people speculated about semicon foundry as well, but so far Chinese foundry has not made much inroad.

But BLU and set assembly would benefit and has already been done more or less.

irkirk,
A company makes the investment to build a newer Fab in order to make larger panels or to decrease fixed and variable manufacturing costs or both. Aftter the costs of the new fab are spent they are considered sunk costs from an accounting standpoint and the fab is a new asset on their books so it's investment cost are not considered when comparing the manufacturing costs of products at different plants. If they were a company make a stupid business decision not to use the new more efficient plant and leave it partially idle untill demand forced them to use it.

I see that the LC70LE735U is on the Best Buy website now, "coming soon" with a price of $4,300. Anyone have a clue when these will be available for real?

I've read one in depth review of the Sharp 70" and they seemed to like it quite a bit. They mentioned a build quality that left a bit to be desired but overall it was accepted well. Anybody else have any first hand observations?

Irkirk,
The quote you supplied does in no mathematical way justify the following statement,
"
The only way to gain economies of scale in LCD is through making an entire motherglass of same-size panels. Once you can make 6 per sheet, your cost of manufacture is 1/5 that of someone who can only make 2 per sheet, even if the 2 are made with no waste.
"