Originally Posted by unixguru
What is Sony getting for their investment? If you go purely by competitors TV model size
, the only possible use of Sharp panels in your view is the few 60" models Sony has. Why would Sony bother with Sharp panels when Samsung has 60"? If the 46 & 55 are made by Samsung then why in the world would they jump panels within
a series? KDL-46EX723, KDL-55EX723, KDL-60EX723 and KDL-46NX720, KDL-55NX720, KDL-60NX720
I don't even understand your question or point here. Sharp has numerous customers for 60" panels, not just Sony. They also sold ~1 million 60" TVs last year.
If you are asking what Sony is buying from Sharp, I would look at sizes Sharp sells that Sony sells.
Sharp 60" are actually 60 & 1/32". Sony and Samsung line up on 64.5, 54.6. Sony and Sharp don't line up at 60 but Sony and Samsung do. Sony and Samsung don't line up at 46 either (Samsung is 45.9).
So what you are proving is that Sony is buying 65" panels from Samsung and 60" panels from Samsung and perhaps 46" panels from Sharp? I mean I have no problem believing that.
What you are not proving
is that Sharp makes 65" panels for anyone.
If we followed your logic then Sony is not using anything from Sharp. So again I ask why do they have an investment in the plant? There was even a period of time where there was talk of increasing their investment.
First of all, they might not be using anything from Sharp. Again, I know this is hard to grasp, but it's really quite possible. They just wound down S-LCD last year from an investment perspective and as part of that they made (what I'd imagine is) a long-term supply agreement.
The TV market was 20% smaller than planned last year on top of that.
When Sony and Sharp made this deal, the world was a different place and Sony was perhaps trying to ensure they had a dual-source supply of panels since they only owned half of S-LCD, probably believed they'd be gaining share not shedding it, saw a much bigger market, and didn't want to rely only on Samsung.
It's actually possible that no Sony TV has ever used a panel from Sakai. It's also possible that only 40 and 46" Sony TVs have ever used a panel from Sakai. Owning 7% of the plant doesn't get them 7% of the production or require them to take 7% of the production. It gets them 7% ownership in the profits and losses of the plant. The plant has been a money loser every year since it opened. It's possible Sony simply takes no production from it at all in return for an offset on its share of losses.
What is almost certainly impossible is that for about 1 day a year, the plant is temporarily repurposed to make 65" panels.
So bare LCDs, diffusers, and backlights are going on a boat from Japan to Mexico to be merged into the panel assembly.? A process that needs a cleaner than average manufacturing area. In a dirty shipping container. Ya sure.
It's more likely the entire panel assembly is what rolls out of the panel factory and that is shipped to final assembly. Final assembly is merging the panel sandwich, circuit boards, power supply, cabinet, front glass, etc.
In your scenario, this "panel assembly" which really is mythic anyway since it's nothing more than a bunch of stacked layers, is what's shipped... I'd love to know why you think the dirt on the back of that assembly or between the layers is fine, but that it's impossible to ship the modules in a way they can be kept clean and then have them air-dusted before final assembly.
Again, it makes no difference whether the panel ships without a stack of diffusers, BEFs, light guides and the BLU attached or not. It really doesn't. Either way, it's shipped in sealed packaging and has to be cleaned before final assembly. The fact you think your method is somehow less fragile than mine is odd. Either way, the panel is entirely exposed, although in your method it has films sitting behind it. If your TV has a front glass/plastic (and I assume most do), that's obviously not shipped from Japan to Mexico, or else the TV would already be assembled... So since we know assembly isn't in Japan, it still makes no difference whether the LCD is shipped apart from the stack or with it... the logistics concerns are the same.
And, really, my method is better since the stack being assembled at the last second would yield the best tolerances and the most consistent result. But it still does't matter.
I've seen the parts list for the model and there is a single part number for "LCD panel assembly".
Again, so what? Also, what does that include? Also, where is that assembled? Let's just pretend the modules are finished in Japan because (a) I really don't know (b) it's not important at all to this discussion.
I'm saying that Sharp can put whatever kind of backlight that is needed into the assembly. They ALREADY do it just within their own brands. And they also make both Quattron and non-Quattron panels. None of that is a question of optimization or quantity.
100% of that is not 65" panels.
Your argument about motherglass utilization is valid. They can make both 60" & 70" @ 88% utilization. 65" would be 76%.
It's hard to believe Sony is commissioning Sakai to make glass for what amounts to less than 1 day a year and
wasting so much. Furthermore, there is tens of millions in startup costs for a new size.
How about an explanation as to why Samsung is selling it's panels to Sony which Sony is then using to sell a superior TV? The Samsungs can't touch the HX929s or the Elites for black level. If it's so easy to do full array local dimming then why has Samsung not produced such a product???
That's really easy and there are at least two reasons:
1) Samsung was enjoined from making full array sets for at least some period of time. This was due to patent issues regarding their short-lived (and well regarded) full array local dimming set
2) Samsung can sell high-end TVs with low-end picture quality. They don't need to make TVs as good to sell them for a lot of money.
Also, it's obviously not easy to do well, but it's clear from Samsung's overall TV market share, that not having one isn't really hurting them. They are rumored to be planning one which means they solved the IP issues or it's just a rumor.
I am no longer convinced that Sharp supplies the HX929 panels. Nor am I convinced that Samsung does. I suspect that we will never know for sure.
I know it's Samsung or LG, since there is not a shred of evidence anyone on earth produces 65" LCDs right now aside from those two companies. And since Samsung absolutely supplies the vast majority of Sony's TV panels, I can reasonably conclude it's a Samsung panel. The fact you've told me it matches up size-wise to Samsung's own 65" TV further proves this.
So, actually, we do know.