Analyst column Archives ⋆ OLED

[Analyst Column] If You Can’t Do OLED, Don’t Even Dream About QLED

July 11, 2016/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

QLED is Becoming an issue (Picture Source = Samsung Elec.)

UBI Research Chief Analyst Choong Hoon Yi

As the next generation TV technology, QLED is becoming an issue in media. This is because Samsung Electronics selected QLED TV as the next product after the currently selling SUHD TV. However, if QLED TV display is the product that uses electroluminescence quantum dot, this shows they do not know display at all.

Quantum dot technology display can be divided into 2 types depending on the light-emitting technology. Photoluminescence quantum dot technology uses mechanism where the materials stimulated by external light emits light again, and this QD technology is currently applied to LCD TV. The TV has quantum dot sheet attached to the backlight’s blue light to be used as the backlight unit, and Samsung Electronics’ SUHD TV is such a product.

As photoluminescence quantum dot has wide color gamut, this can actualize over 110% of NTSC standards and there is no doubt that this is the best LCD TV product. Furthermore, another photoluminescence quantum dot technology, where colors are actualized by dispersing quantum dot materials on color filter, is in development.

In comparison, electroluminescence quantum dot technology is self-emitting when electricity is applied, and similar to OLED. Only the light emitting materials are inorganic and the structure is comparable to OLED. For OLED, hole is introduced from electrode through HIL layer, and this hole reaches emitting materials through HTL layer to produce light.

When the electron reaches emitting materials through EIL and ETL layers, the emitting materials with rapidly increased energy level due to electron and hole, produces light to release the energy. HIL, HTL, EIL, and ETL layers are needed in OLED to control the energy levels needed for electron and hole to reach emitting materials.

Therefore, for electroluminescence quantum dot to emitting light, HIL, HTL, EIL, and ETL layers are required same as OLED. Scientists developing electroluminescence quantum dot technology are using OLED HIL, HTL, EIL, and ETL materials. As the exclusive materials have not been developed, the technology is still in early stages.

This still belongs in science category rather than technology. Furthermore, electroluminescence quantum dot is dispersed to solution to print, and as such ink-jet or similar equipment development is necessary. HIL, HTL, EIL, and ETL also have to be dispersed using solution.

What is curious is whether Samsung Electronics’ QLED TV is existing QD technology that uses photoluminescence quantum dot or technology that uses electroluminescence quantum dot. Generally, QLED signifies electroluminescence quantum dot.

Therefore, if Samsung Electronics can really sell electroluminescence quantum dot using QLED within a few years, this will place Samsung Electronics as the world’s most innovative company establishing new scientific records.

However, OLED emitting materials developing companies are dismissing this claim as ridiculous. Solution process produced OLED emitting materials, HIL, HTL, EIL, and ETL materials have not yet been suitably developed, and require 5 more years before commercialization. As such, companies believe that actualizing QLED in a few years is impossible.

The fact is QLED exclusive HIL, HTL, EIL, and ETL materials are not being developed yet. Printing equipment also have not yet been commercialized. Electroluminescence quantum dot developing academia also points out that only the potential has been glimpsed so far.

Several stages have to be passed through for QLED to be realized. For solution process using QLED to be commercialized, it could only happen after solution process OLED appears first. Looking at the history of OLED commercialization, this is minimum 10 years.

For Samsung Electronics that cannot produce OLED TV to have mentioned that they will produce QLED TV within 3 years makes the writer wonder whether to exclaim, “only Samsung” in awe or ask “what is Samsung doing?”

[Analyst Column] CES 2016 Press Conference Comparison Analysis, Samsung Elec. TV vs. LG Elec. TV

January 14, 2016/in Analyst column, Focus on, Set /by OLEDNET

Choong Hoon Yi, Chief Analyst, UBI Research

When Samsung Electronics, CES’ most important company, holds a press conference, members of the media wait longer than an hour anticipating the new world the firm will show. For LG Electronics’ press conference, the waiting period is relatively shorter.

However, the press conferences at CES 2016 were not as anticipated. In CES and IFA, the representative of electronic appliances companies is TV. However, the TV in Samsung Electronics’ event was merely the same SUHD TV as shown before. Instead, ICT area, such as VR, USB adaptor, and Samsung Pay, was emphasized. During the last year’s CES, Samsung Electronics received much acclaim with curved design added SUHD TV. The only difference for this year’s TV from CES 2015’s was the text ‘Quantum Dot Display’ underneath the SUHD.

Samsung Electronics is considered the rule maker of the market with new designs and aggressive marketing. The fact that Samsung Electronics only added the words quantum dot to the already applied SUHD TV LCD panel is analyzed to be a desperate measure demonstrating the LCD TV’s development limitation.

On the other hand, during their press conference, LG Electronics provided a vision where the TV market can have another growth spurt through the introduction of the improved OLED TV with 800 nit peak brightness. Particularly, NASA’s video of vivid deep black of the space and dynamic fiery red of the sun on the OLED TV brought the audiences to cheer and applause. What could only have been seen by astronauts can now be seen by everyone through OLED TV. This was an event where everyone could feel what a true display really is.

Of course, as the largest market of the consumer market is smartphone, it would be illogical to discuss Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics with only TV. However, Samsung Electronics’ smartphone business also remained stationery last year and all businesses, excluding semiconductor, is falling downward. As such, for Samsung fans who have high expectations it is of much concern.

The reason that the companies that led electronic appliance industry for the past half century such as Sony, Panasonic, and Toshiba are falling is because they did not have paradigm changing technology and product when the market was stalling. The same unfortunate sign is coming from Samsung Electronics.

Chinese set companies including TCL also brought quantum dot technology applied LCD TV to CES 2016. 8K TV was also exhibited. Although the picture quality control technology of the Chinese TV companies still falls short compared to companies such as Samsung Electronics, LC Electronics, and Sony, the set exterior reached similar standards and the price is less than 70% of the early starters’. The difference in the picture quality is difficult to distinguish for those who are not TV or display experts. The quality of Chinese products does not reflect the cheaper price, and cheap and good products are pouring in from China.

For Samsung Electronics that cannot produce OLED TV, in order to repeat the last year’s popularity in international events such as IFA in later this year, a big issue and product that can represent the company are urgently needed.

[Analyst Column] LCD Industry Administration to Worsen after 3 Years

December 11, 2015/in Analyst column, Focus on /by OLEDNET

Choong Hoon Yi, Chief Analyst, UBI Research

BOE is intending to carry out a large amount of investment in order to operate Gen10.5 LCD line from 2018. Meanwhile, key set makers including Apple, Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics, and Panasonic are devising strategy to move from LCD to OLED for smartphone and premium TV displays. As such, it is becoming more likely for the LCD industry to be in slump from 2018.

At present, the area where LCD industry can create profit is LTPS-LCD for smartphone. The forecast smartphone market for this year is approximately 15 billion units. Of this, Samsung Electronics and Apple are occupying 20% and 15% of the market respectively. OLED equipped units are less than 2 billion.

However, from 2018 the conditions change greatly. Firstly, Apple, which has been using LCD panel only, is estimated to change approximately 40% of the display to OLED from 2017 earliest and 2018 latest. Apple is testing flexible OLED panels of JDI, LG Display, and Samsung Display, and recommending them to invest so flexible OLED can be applied to iPhone from 2017. The total capa. Is 60K at Gen6. As new investments for Gen6 line of Samsung Display and LG Display are expected to be carried out from 2016, supply is theoretically possible from 2017.

Source: UBI Research Database

If 5inch flexible OLED is produced from Gen6 line, under the assumption of 50% yield at 60K capa. 65 million units can be produced annually, and approximately 1 billion units if the yield is 80%. If Apple’s iPhone shipment in 2017 is estimated to be around 2.7 billion units, within the 50-60% yield range approximately 25% of the display is changed to OLED from LCD, and if yield reaches 80% around 40% will change. The companies that are supplying Apple with LCD for smartphone, LG Display, JDI, and Sharp, are expected to show considerable fall in sales and business. These 3 companies could be reduced to deficit financial structure just from Apple’s display change

Furthermore, as Apple is not producing low-priced phones, under the assumption that future iPhone could all have OLED display, Apple could cause the mobile device LCD industry to stumble after 3 years.

Samsung Electronics also is gradually changing Galaxy series display to OLED from LCD. Of the forecast 2015 shipment of 3 billion units, 50%, 1.5 billion units, has OLED display, but Samsung Electronics is expected to increase flexible OLED and rigid OLED equipped products in future. Particularly, as Apple is pushing for flexible OLED application from 2017, Samsung Electronics, whose utilizing OLED as the main force, is estimated to increase flexible OLED usage more than Apple. It is estimated that all Galaxy series product displays will be changed to OLED from 2019.

Under these assumptions, of the estimated smartphone market in 2020 of approximately 20 billion units, Samsung Electronics and Apple’s forecast markets’ 7 billion could be considered to use OLED.

Samsung Display is strengthening supply chain of set companies using their OLED panels. Samsung Display is supplying OLED panels to diverse companies such as Motorola and Huawei as well as Samsung Electronics, and also expected to supply rapidly rising Xiaomi from 2016. If smartphone display is swiftly changed to OLED from LCD from 2017, Chinese display companies that are currently expanding TFT-LCD lines are to be adversely affected.

Additionally, in the premium TV market, LG Electronics mentioned that they will focus on OLED TV industry at this year’s IFA2015. As a part of this, LG Display is planning to expand the current Gen8 34K to 60K by the end of next year. Furthermore, in order to respond to the 65inch market, Gen9.5 line investment is in consideration. In the early 2015, Panasonic commented that they were to withdraw from TV business but changed strategy with new plans of placing OLED TV on the market in Japan and Europe from next year.

As Samsung can no longer be disconnected from the OLED TV business, there are reports of investment for Gen8 OLED for TV line in 2016. Although OLED TV market is estimated to be approximately 350 thousand units this year, in 2016, when Panasonic joins in, it is expected to expand to 1.2 million units. The OLED TV’s market share in ≥55inch TV market is estimated to be only 4% but in premium TV market it is estimated to be significant value of ≥10%.

If Samsung Display invests in Gen8 OLED for TV line in 2016, from H2 2017 supply to Samsung Electronics is possible. As OLED Gen8 line’s minimum investment has to be over 60K to break even, it can be estimated that Samsung Display will invest at least 60K continuously in future.

Under these conditions, LCD industry can only be in crisis. Firstly, it becomes difficult for Sharp to last. Sharp, which is supplying TFT-LCD for Apple’s iPhones and LCD for Samsung Electronics’ TV, will lose key customers. Secondly, BOE, AUO, and JDI, the companies selling LCD panels to these companies, are not ready to produce OLED and therefore damage is inevitable.

BOE is carrying out aggressive investment with plans to lead the display industry in future with operation of Gen10.5 LCD line. Therefore, from 2018, as the main cash cow items disappear, administration pressure could increase.

[Analyst Column] Korean Display Industry Is On Descent

August 12, 2015/in Analyst column, Focus on /by OLEDNET

Dr Choong Hoon Yi, UBI Research Chief Analyst, ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

The analysis of 2015 2Q results of Samsung Display and LG Display shows clear indication that Korean display industry is on descent.

[2015 Q2 Korean Display Total Sales Analysis]

According to the results announcement of the 2 companies, the total of 2015 Q2 sales is approximately US$ 11,000,000,000. Compared to the total sales in 2013 Q2 which was US$ 13,000,000,000, Korean display industry trend is exhibiting clear downward tendency.

2015 Q2 Korean display sales records -4% QoQ, and 8% YoY.

The main reason for the decrease in sales is Samsung Display’s deterioration of earnings results. While LG Display’s sales of the past 3 years remain fairly consistent but Samsung Display’s sales is gradually decreasing.

[2015 Q2 Korean Display Total Business Profit Analysis]

Connecting the high points of the total of 2 companies’ business profit reveal that the business value is worsening as the trend moves downward. This also is much contributed to Samsung Display’s business profit decrease.

[Samsung Display and LG Display Sales Analysis]

According to the earnings announcement of both companies, Samsung Display and LG Display recorded sales of approximately US$ 5,500,000,000 and US$ 5,600,000,000 respectively. LG Display is maintaining higher sales results compared to Samsung Display for the past 5 quarters. Each company’s QoQ showed to be -4% (LGD) and -3% (SDC) and YoY to be 12% (LGD) and 5% (SDC). The simultaneous decrease of QoQ sales of both companies demonstrates that the Q3 sales could also fall.

[Samsung Display and LG Display’s Competitiveness Analysis]

Looking at the profit/sales graph of Samsung Display and LG Display, it is apparent that Samsung Display showed superior competitiveness until 2013 Q3, but since then LG Display averaged higher.

[Conclusion]

The reason for the downward trend of Korean display industry is analyzed to be the fall of display panel price due to the Chinse display companies’ mass production through aggressive investment. Particularly, in or after 2017 when China’s BOE is estimated to begin Gen10.5 LCD line, LCD panel price will fall even more rapidly. This is forecast to lead Korean LCD industry to suddenly lose competitiveness. For Korean display companies that have immense LCD sales to show positive growth, it is time to expand OLED business that can be differentiated from Chinse display companies.

The only solutions for Korean display industry are OLED investment in large scale and conversion of LCD line to OLED line. At the time of BOE’s Gen10.5 line operation, Korean display companies also should respond with Gen6 flexible OLED investment and early establishment of Gen8 OLED line.

[Analyst Column] LG Display Q2 Earnings Analysis and Signification of Flexible OLED Investment

August 5, 2015/in Analyst column, Focus on /by OLEDNET

Dr Choong Hoon Yi, UBI Research Chief Analyst, ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

On July 23, LG Display announced its earnings results at LG Twin Towers in Yeouido, South Korea. LG Display reported that their Q2 sales recorded approximately US$ 5,700,000,000 with business profit of approximately US$ 420,000,000.

Although sales fell by approximately US$ 260,000,000 (-5%) compared to the previous quarter, it was an increase of US$ 620,000,000 (12%) compared to the year before. Business profit showed approximately US$ 210,000,000 decrease (-34%) QoQ, and YoY US$ 280,000,000 increase (206%).

LG Display’s sales and business profit of Y/Yo (green line) showed U shape of trend of growth in previous 5 quarters but this quarter recorded a fall. It is analyzed that the growth could slow down from 2H 2015.

The drop of the LG display’s Y/Yo growth in this 2Q is much attributed to smartphone market’s slow down and TV market reduction. It is also estimated the panel price reduction due to Chinese display companies’ aggressive investment is reflected.

For LG Display to stop the degrowth, mass production of products that are differentiated from competition, is urgently needed, away from LCD panel that is LGD’s current major business.

On the day, LG Display’s management announced approx. US$ 900,000,000 investment for Gen6 flexible OLED line in order to lead flexible OLED market. The investment location is Gumi factory. Investment location is Gumi factory with the initial investment of 7.5K. It is expected world’s second flexible OLED exclusive line will established following Samsung Display. It is anticipated that up to 15K will be established for this line.

Considering last year’s LG Display’s business profit was approx. US$ 1,100,000,000, the US$ 900,000,000 flexible OLED investment is very large. The investment decision must have been very difficult. However, the reasons for LG Display’s drastic flexible OLED exclusive line investment are because companies that produce LTPS-TFT LCD (LGD’s existing main market) is increasing, and because Samsung Display is already monopolizing rigid OLED market and therefore difficult to secure market share.

LG Display’s CFO Kim Sang-don explained that flexible OLED Gen6 line investment was decided at the board of directors meeting on July 22, and was made official on the morning of July 23. Kim added that the decision was reached so that LG Display can lead the OLED business in terms of technology and to occupy initial market in foldable and rollable technologies. He also commented the monthly capa. of the flexible OLED line will be 7.5K.

Regarding large area OLED panel, it was emphasized that this year’s panel production target remains to be 600,000 units and 1,500,000 units next year, same as the ones announced during the Q1 earnings results presentation. It was also revealed that 34K, approximately 9K higher than current capa., will be in operation in 2016. Addressing the concern of oversupply of next year’s 1,500,000 units while the OLD TV market is still small, LG Display suggested the solution of increasing the demand by active promotion from the second half of this year.

Despite the fall of mid to large size panels’ sales price, from the enlargement of sets and AIT technology applied sales performance, the business profit of approximately US$ 4,000 million was recorded. This is a 34% decrease compared to the previous quarter but a 199% increase from the same period in 2014. LG Display estimates that the sales will increase in the third quarter due to seasonal factors and panel’s enlargement trend.

[Analyst Column] Korean TV Industry, Where to Go?

July 3, 2015/in Analyst column, Focus on, Market /by OLEDNET

Dr Choong Hoon Yi, UBI Research Chief Analyst, ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

Korean TV industry, according to recent reports by media, is showing a red light not being able to escape the deficit structure.

Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics possess high market share in costly premium TV market. However, in 30inch grade market, the two companies struggle against economically priced sets. In order to maintain sales, Samsung Elec. and LG Elec. are managing diverse product portfolio but business profit keep falling. Due to this, LCD panel stocks produced by Samsung Display and LG Display are steadily increasing.

LCD panel business is sinking into a pit.

What is the reason that Korea’s LCD TV and LCD business values can only become worse?

This can be forecast from looking at Japan’s TV and LCD business. Until the early 2000s, Japan was one of the leaders in electronics. However, Japan’s TV business is gradually dying out. Japan’s leading companies, Sony and Panasonic’s TV business began to be deteriorate because of Korean mid-low price products. In succession, Sony ended up spinning off the TV business, and Panasonic stopped TV business other than for domestic supply. Korean TV companies began to dominate the market. However, only a few years since then, Korean TV industry is losing commercial value, pushed aside by mid-low price products manufactured by China and others.

Second is display investment. As Japanese TV industry began to crumble, Japanese display companies had no choice but to stop the investment. The companies could not see a way to make profit through investment even if TV market grew as client companies’ panel purchasing power fell. Korea is the same. Samsung Elec. and LG Elec.’s TV business profitability deterioration led toward Samsung Display and LG Display’s halting the investment. On the other hand, Chinse display companies began Gen10.5 line investment. TV industry relies on assembly business and business network and therefore initial investment cost is low. In comparison, display industry is high risk as it requires large scale investment from early stages. If the business profit falls without investment cost return, companies face great loss and business closure is also not easy.

The third reason that Japanese TV companies are dying out is because they could not produce premium TV. Sony, which lost its competitiveness in LCD TV, tried to strengthen its market leadership through 4K TV. However, the brand value was already down and with the lack of marketing value, Sony easily gave up the market to companies in pursuit such as Samsung Elec. and LG Elec. LCD TV already had no difference in quality whether it was produced by a Korean or Japanese company, and brand value order had switched. LCD TV quality produced by Chinese companies is already reached the top. They are no longer companies who produce cheaper knockoffs. Furthermore, LCD panel production technology of Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China can now be deemed equal.

The final reason that stops Japanese TV business from securing market is that they failed to suggest differentiation point in premium TV. Fundamentally, differentiation is not possible for LCD TV. The biggest differentiation factors in the current TV market are picture quality and design. Any company can produce thin LCD TV and curved LCD TV. Panel size, resolution, and QD-LED using color gamut that LCD can actualize can no longer be differentiated technology. The difference of LCD panel and TV manufacturing technology between Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China is already within a year. No matter what kind of product is released, market control has one year of expiration period. Considering the promotion period required in the market is approximately 6 months, the period where profit can be made is shortened even further.

So what is the solution for the Korean TV industry to survive?

As I have mentioned dozens of times for several years, what is left is OLED TV. What LCD cannot do in terms of picture quality and design, with OLED it is possible. Therefore, only the non-LCD products can enjoy the key factors of differentiation in premium TV market.

Existing premium TV is IPTV, a market that Japanese TV companies have been pursuing since early 2000s. Internet connection is possible through TV and allows for exchange of information in both directions. The basic concept of IPTV is watching TV while searching the information on TV via internet. But how useful is this concept at present? The usefulness of IPTV is becoming increasingly low as smartphone is used to search information, use the internet, and even watch TV. With no reason to use the internet via TV, TV companies should seriously consider whether TV with high white brightness is really needed. Rather than white TV with high brightness, it is time to place more importance in the functions of the TV itself. TV screen only uses 20-30% of full white brightness. Films, with outdoor shooting, falls under 20%, and for contents shot at night, black is more important.

Considering ‘blackness’ and design, anyone can find where the solution lies. If the foolish notion of trying to make OLED as bright as LCD is abandoned, there is hope.

LG OLED UHD TV, SID 2015

Samsung OLED UHD TV, IFA 2013

[Analyst Column] Green Light Lit for Korean Display Industry?

May 8, 2015/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

Dr. Choong Hoon Yi, Chief Analyst of UBI Research

Source: UBI Research

After the weak showing of 5 quarters, Korea’s display panel industry is distinctively showing trend of growth. According to Samsung Electronics and LG Display’s 1Q 2015 performance announcements, the total sales of Korean display of 1Q is approximately US$ 12,900,000,000. Compared to the previous quarter (QoQ) the sales showed a decrease of 9%, but compared to the same quarter of the previous year (YoY) it is a 20% increase.

The worst quarter of the last 2 years, in terms of sales performance, was 4Q 2013. Generally, 4Q which includes Christmas season shows best performance but in 2013 the numbers actually fell compared to 3Q. However, 2014 showed the more general flow of continued sales increase every quarter.

According to this quarterly performance, it is analyzed that 2015 Korean display panel will fit the growth pattern; YoY of this quarter and previous quarter shows 14% and 20% of growth respectively.

Source: UBI Research

The reason for Korean display industry’s recovery trend is LG Display’s continued positive performance. Comparing the market share in sales between Samsung Display and LG Display, LG Display is leading the market for the past 3 quarters occupying more than 50%.

The elevation in LG Display’s performance is seen to be from Apple iPhone 6’s improved performance. However, as the iPhone 6’s shipment increases, it is likely that the rival Samsung Electronics’ Galaxy sales will fall, leading toward the possible slowdown of Samsung Display’s performance.

Samsung Display and LG Display’s success will inevitably differ depending on the market share of world leading smart phone companies that they supply, Samsung Electronics and Apple. However, the Korean display industry, no matter which Korean company comes ahead, is expected to continue its growth.

[Analyst Column] The Reason Samsung Must Undertake OLED TV and Technology Course Analysis

April 21, 2015/in Analyst column, Focus on /by OLEDNET

Yi Choong Hoon Yi, Chief Analysis / UBI Research

In 2014, as the revenue and business profit fluctuated greatly per quarter, Samsung Display carried out management evaluation with BCG. One of the conclusions is known to be Gen10 LCD investment together with large area OLED for TV investment.

Gen10 LCD line investment is seen to be a countermeasure against Chinese display companies that continue their aggressive investment and display industry that is expanding in information society. It is analyzed that the large area OLED line investment is to prepare for the OLED TV market growth which has superior picture quality compared to LCD and to control their biggest rival company LG’s WRGB OLED TV market expansion which is maintaining their investment.

These two plans are obvious conclusions that any display expert can draw.

However, any experts who know Korea’s display would recognize that Gen10 LCD line investment is not suitable for Korea. This is because even if Korea expands the market share by investing in Gen10 LCD line they will still be weak against Chinese display companies in price. Korean display companies only sell high quality goods and 90~95% is the limit of yield rate. In comparison, in China the size of the population who can easily purchase expensive high quality TV and the consumers who demands lower priced goods are both huge; faulty display panels have a place in Chinese market. Chinese display companies can also sell lower quality panels through close relationship with lower price TV production companies with factories in China. Theoretically, this can lower the panel price as yield rate close to 100% can be achieved. Furthermore, support from Chinese government and cheap factory construction cost increases price competitiveness of Chinese display companies even more.

The reason Japanese display companies had no choice but to give up LCD market to Korean display companies was also because they could not continue LCD investment with their difficulty in price competitiveness. Although Sharp vigorously continued investing until Gen10 line, the result was decision to sell small size LCD line for mobile device due to the accumulated deficit.

If Samsung Display decides on Gen10 investment, it is highly likely that they will follow similar path to Sharp’s, increasing the risks rather than sales. It is more effective for Samsung Electronics to lead TV industry using Chinese companies’ cheap LCD panel with good definition rather than producing TV using expensive Korean LCD panels with good picture quality. The fact that there are no comments regarding Gen10 investment within Samsung Display can be interpreted that there are experts with good understanding of display industry.

Unlike the current Samsung Elec. business strategy where the focus is exclusively on quantum dot technology applied LCD SUHD TV, the large size line investment decision for OLED TV production is a conclusion that requires change in Samsung’s business strategy. In CES 2015, Samsung Elec. exhibited SUHD TV and OLED TV in comparison and highlighted LCD TV’s superiority in picture quality. If SUHD TV is more competitive than OLED TV, it is not worth investing any further.

However, the story is different in smart phone market. This is because Samsung Elec.’s flagship model Galaxy series all use AMOLED. One of the differentiation strategies that Samsung Elec. is using when selling Galaxy series is OLED. Wireless department of Samsung Elec. expanded the market share to 20% using the smart phone with the word ‘OLED’ attached. Most recently, flexible OLED applied Galaxy S6 Edge is hugely popular.

Samsung Elec.’s smart phone business department, IM, is recording twice the amount of revenue of VD business department that produces TV. Therefore that VD department’s marketing method of emphasizing OLED has worse definition than LCD is contradictory since IM department is marketing their product by valuing the superior picture quality of OLED over LCD. If QD-LCD is good then obviously the panel for Galaxy S series also has to be replaced to QD-LCD. Insisting that OLED has better picture quality in smart phone and LCD is superior in TV is mutually incompatible. This kind of dual behavior could result in Samsung Elec.’s rationales to be considered as ones by the boy who cried wolf. For the future expansion of Samsung Elec.’s smart phone market, VD department also has to produce OLED TV and establish the equation of ‘Samsung Elec. = OLED’ in order to complete the business strategy.

This is the reason Samsung must undertake OLED TV.

Nevertheless, problems are numerous. OLED TV produced by Samsung Elec. in 2013 was deemed to be marginally inferior in terms of completeness and picture quality compared to LG Electronics’ OLED TV by UBI Research’s Picture Quality Analysis Report and an article in OLEDNET. Since then Samsung Elec. halted OLED TV production practically acknowledging that their own OLED TV could not compete against LG Elec.’s product. The reason for this could be attributed to TV’s lower completeness but the fundamental reason lied in the fact that Samsung Display’s RBG OLED panel production method and characteristics could not compete against LG Display’s WRGB OLED in picture quality and competitiveness.

RGB OLED for Large area uses fine metal mask similar to small size AMOLED, and therefore OLED panel production is not possible using Gen8 mother glass and has to use evaporator for Gen8 glass cut into 6. As LG Display’s WRGB OLED manufactures pixels using white OLED with color filter fine metal mask is not required which allows for OLED panel production in Gen8 without cutting. Compared to the fact the rival company LG Display is using 1 Gen8 evaporator, Samsung Display requires 6 evaporators. The increased number of evaporators obviously leads to an increase in investment cost and the panel production cost cannot but be higher than LG Display.

Even in TFT production cost, Samsung Display is weaker in comparison to LG Display. LTPS-TFT process used by Samsung Display requires 8~9 mask processes but LG Display is using oxide TFT which needs 4~5. Therefore, it has an advantage of minimizing the investment cost when LCD line is transformed to OLED line. For Samsung Display to transform existing LCD line to OLED line, they have to add a huge amount of capital to the LTPS-TFT production. If they transform the existing 200K LCD factory to OLED line, the capa. also decreases to 90K, but LG Display can maintain the 200K volume without any loss. When OLED is produced transforming the existing LCD line, LG Display does not need additional factory construction but it is calculated that Samsung Display has to build another factory of equal size.

In encapsulation process, LG Display, which uses hybrid encapsulation technology, remains advantageous. This completes the OLED panel production by attaching adhesive film laminated metal foil on top of passivation which is a moisture proof structure made with 2~3 layers of passivation after OLED device production. The OLED panel for TV that was mass produced by Samsung Display in 2013 also used hybrid encapsulation structure. The difference was that the top substrate was glass. However, as Samsung Display was accused by LG Display for appropriating their encapsulation technology, Samsung is currently developing dam & fill method of hybrid encapsulation technology. Samsung Display’s dam & fill hybrid encapsulation technology shares the part of forming passivation layer on top of device with LG Display. However, after that Samsung Display applies curing agent using ODF (one drop filling) method to the dam made with organic materials on the outside of the panel. They then attach the glass substrate and harden. Although it would be better if the dam production could occur simultaneously as PDL (pixel define layer) process, generally as PDL layer is on top of TFT and dam structure is on the outside of the panel, height difference could develop leading to difficulty in upper substrate attachment. Furthermore, if the dam height is lower than PDL’s, it is unfavorable for the curved design which is the latest TV trend. Accordingly, if the dam formation process ensues after passivation is complete, further mask process is necessary which increases cost due to the added equipment investment. Samsung Display’s encapsulation process is a continuous operation whereas LG Display’s process can attach the coring film to the metal foil and send the selected high quality products to attachment process; for yield rate management, LG Display is better suited. Dam & fill method has to fill the liquid curing resin first before the attachment of upper substrate. This means that several hundreds of um thickness of glass substrate attachment is more appropriate rather than attaching metal foil of dozens of um thickness. In that case, metal foil cannot be used and additional heat sink materials are required. In encapsulation process, LG Display technology is better for mass production and has an advantage of being able to lower the production cost.

In conclusion, for Samsung Display to re-enter OLED panel for TV industry, rather than using their existing technology of LTPS-TFT, RGB OLED, and damn & fill encapsulation, it is better to use the technology being used by LG Display such as oxide TFT structure, WRGB OLED structure and lamination method of encapsulation structure that uses adhesive film.

To challenge large area OLED panel industry again, Samsung Display placed the existing large area OLED team under research lab led by their top OLED expert SungChul Kim. Although there has been no official discussion regarding OLED panel production technology directional course, using the same technology as LG Display’s would be advisable in order to succeed.

In terms of resources, Samsung Display, with their many years of OLED panel mass production experience and several thousands of top quality OLED engineers, is superior compared to LG Display.

Only the patents and decision making processes are left.

[Analyst Column] Encapsulation Technology, Where is it Going?

March 30, 2015/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

Yi Choong Hoon Yi, Chief Analysis / UBI Research

OLED market is heating up again. Rigid OLED market growth was temporarily stalled but with Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics’ new flexible (plastic) OLED products, Galaxy S6 Edge and G Flex 2 respectively, the smart phone market’s temperature is rising. In order to maintain the storm that iPhone brought, Apple is preparing to release smart watch equipped with LG Display’s plastic OLED. Additionally, LG Elec. is targeting the premium TV market with their 55 inch and 65 inch UHD OLED TV.

OLED panel leading company Samsung Display decided on Gen 6 line’s additional investment for flexible OLED production expansion. LG Display also decided on supplemental extension of Gen 4 line in Paju responding to the shortage of plastic OLED supply. Furthermore, JDI is joining in and expected to begin Gen 6 flexible OLED line establishment soon.

Recently announced Samsung Display’s decision to invest in large OLED line is the most encouraging news. Frontline leader in OLED display, Samsung Display mass produced 55 inch OLED panel using RGB OLED and LTPS TFT technology. However, halting the production, Samsung Display explored for technology with better business value and recently selected to produce large OLED panel using WRGB OLED technology.

OLED panel production technology can be largely separated into 3 parts: TFT, OLED, and encapsulation. Large OLED panel production technology is very difficult to obtain yield compared to small panel. Therefore, while the above 3 technologies are important in producing good panel, technology that can acquire good yield for mass production can guarantee business value. Particularly, as encapsulation is the last process, the final yield depends on the encapsulation method.

In that case, what encapsulation technology is most suitable for large area OLED panel production? As OLEDNET article published on January 12 mentions, from the technology trend perspective the answer is hybrid encapsulation technology. This technology is completed with device’s passivation film, moisture proof top plate that can cover the top, and organic material that adhere the top and passivation film. From the design trend perspective, the technology must be able to bend. Recently, the TV market is moving toward curved design, and to respond to rollable display as well the top plate has to be metal rather than glass. (Reference, 2015 OLED Encapsulation Report, UBI Research)

Hybrid encapsulation technology can be further divided into film method and dam & fill method depending on the adhesive structure between top plate and passivation film. Film method is being applied to mass production by LG Display, and dam & fill method was developed led by Sony. This method dispenses adhesive polymer liquid after organic dam installation on the panel border. This can only be used when the top plate is glass. LG Display completes the process by sealing the metal plate laminated with adhesive film to the device. A best suited technology for curved TV and rollable TV production.

The OLED panel for TV production technology decided by Samsung Display was initially known to select WRGB OLED structure similar to LG Display, but TFT and encapsulation technology have not yet been revealed. However, TFT technology is highly likely to be oxide TFT. (Reference February 27 OLEDNET article) LTPS TFT has high investment cost compared to oxide TFT and has low business value at similar performance.

What is left is encapsulation technology. For this technology also a method already commercialized by LG Display, film lamination method, is most suitable since metal plate is favorable for curved design. Metal plates is strong against external shocks and favorable for heat sink. Glass has lower heat conductivity compared to metal and requires additional protection against heat; this means that production cost can only increase. Considering design, protection against external shocks, and reduced heat sink cost, LG Display’s hybrid encapsulation technology that uses metal plate is the most ideal. Therefore, the direction that Samsung Display should also head toward is metal plate and film using method.

Although small OLED for mobile technology developed by Samsung Display became the norm, it is estimated that LG Display’s technology will become standard for large OLED panel production.

[Analyst Column] AMOLED equipped smartphone promotes enlargement of the display on mobile device

February 23, 2015/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

According to the “2015 OLED Display Annual Report” published by UBI Research, it was researched that the 5-inch AMOLED display is the main product for a smartphone.

The report shows almost no fluctuation in the number of AMOLED equipped smartphone manufacturers for the last three years from 2012 to 2014 – 13 (2012), 11 (2013) and 14 (2014) – but the major smartphone display size that these companies sold was set in-between 4-inch and 5-inch.

Among 31 AMOLED equipped products, there was only one 5-inch smartphone accounting for 3 percent in 2012, but it has increased to 21 percent with 5 products among 21 in 2013, and 19 products in total of 27 forming 70 percent in 2014.

Samsung Electronics strategized the two elements which are not available in iPhone as points of differentiation to compete with the biggest smartphone rival company Apple. The first plan is targeting the color gamut of LCD. The existing LCD can only reproduce approximately 80% of NTSC which is the broadcasting standard. Although it became possible to enjoy TV and movies through a smartphone with the development of communication technologies, there is a difficulty in reproducing the 500nit of TV quality on a smartphone with the brightness of 200nit. The limit in increasing the brightness of a smartphone is in that the power consumption needs to be minimized to use the smartphone for a long time with the battery. In view of that, Samsung Electronics chose the AMOLED panel as a key strategic part meeting the NTSC standard in low power consumption as an alternative for the LCD panel for the consumers to identify more precise colors. It is expected that the demand for AMOLED panel capable of accurately realizing colors of a product will increase further given the latest growth in shopping clothes with smartphones.

The second plan is in the display size. While iPhone focused on a 3-inch small sized smartphone for a better sense of grip to enhance portability, Samsung Electronics was more focused on “a product of better visibility” rather than “a product of better hand grip”. Obviously the early AMOLED panel has low resolution. Therefore, the bigger display was needed to realize high-resolution as it is hard to fix the opening ratio of shadow mask which is used in manufacturing the pixel for AMOLED panel.

Samsung Electronics succeeded in catching up with Apple, the inventer of smartphone, in terms of the color gamut and size of AMOLED display. Now Apple finally abandoned the matter of grip and expanded the display size to 5-inch.

Although Samsung Electronics was a latecomer compared to Apple in the smartphone market, the choice of AMOLED by Samsung Electronics made the Samsung Electronics of today and also prepared the base for the AMOLED to thrive. In addition, the Samsung Electronics’ strategy enabled the smartphone display in the world to develop into a 5-inch “device to see”.

Choong-hoon Yi, Chief Analyst/ UBI Research

[Analyst Column] The last station of TV is the contrast ratio as seen at CES2015

February 3, 2015/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

Began from a CRT, also called brown-tube, the TV market went through a LCD TV, a PDP, and a LED and finally reached at an OLED TV. The TV market with the history of almost 80 years now narrowed down to the war between a LCD TV and an OLED TV.

Theoretically speaking, it is genetically difficult for both a LCD TV and an OLED TV to become a better TV than a brown-tube as LCD realizes gray scale by adjusting the level of voltage from the liquid crystal which cannot completely block all light while the organic materials in OLED decompose when exposed to ultraviolet light not to mention the blue light.

Not deterred by these limitations, the LCD pushed out the rival displays of the brown-tube and PDP in the market, obtaining the honorable crown, and now it went on to prepare for the competition with a new display of OLED in full scale.

The picture quality of a display is determined by the three elements of contrast ratio, color gamut and resolution.

The contrast ratio is the most basic information necessary for recognizing an object developed as a human evolves for millions of years. The human eye can distinguish an object only with a black and white shape at night without the moon and it also perceives a three dimensional space as a distant object is the information resulting from the difference between contrast ratios. But the human eye gets tired faster than any other organs. When a human gets tired, he/she closes his/her eyes to sleep and this action is to block the light from outside. For the bright lights like sunbeam blind the human eye that is susceptible to light, it is critical to avoid the exposure to direct lights around the eyes by wearing a hat with a brim in the open air. The sunglass functions in the same purpose.

Thought an office area uses bright florescent lights as a human gets active in a bright place, a house requiring comfort, high-end restaurant, hotel, etc. are recommended to take the brightness creating the appropriate shadows according to the position of the right sources. It is because a human body relaxes and feels comfortable through the eyes in the adequately dark environment. Furthermore, the human eye cannot detect the intensity of very bright light but the degree of darkness can be distinguished easily. Therefore, a TV that is most beneficial to a human body is a product made with the display that fully produces darkness. That is the OLED TV.

LCD always employed the notion of resolution as distinctive marketing strategy when competing with a brown-tube and a PDP in the market. It is due to the fact that the display with the higher resolution provides more information and the picture and video express smooth images. Though LCD had poor contrast ratio and color gamut than a brown-tube and the price also was relatively high, it grew rapidly indebted to the diverse contents like MS Office and the development of internet.

The emergence of OLED which has superior contrast ratio and color gamut than LCD and even the resolution equivalent to LCD became the biggest challenge for the LCD panel manufactures which have already made a huge investment. As LG Display is the only manufacturer capable of producing a large OLED panel with the 4K resolution, it is very urgent for the TV manufactures to secure the highest possible quality LCD TV to compete with the LG Electronics’ OLED TV.

The LCD TV made with the BLU using the quantum dot (QD) material got one step closer to the OLED TV obtaining the 100% of NTSC which was only available for OLED.

The key is the contrast ratio.

Choong-hoon Yi / Chief Analyst / UBI Research / ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

[Analyst Column]The key technology to realize 8K OLED TV is transparent hybrid encapsulation technology

January 27, 2015/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

Choong-hoon Yi / Chief Analyst / UBI Research ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

Along with LG Electronics, Panasonic and Skyworth joined the UHD TV industry as releasing the 55-inch, 65-inch and 77-inch UHD OLED TVs at CES2015.

In response to this, the LCD TV manufacturers unveiled numerous new LCD TVs at CES2015 combining different technologies of QD, HDR, and curved design.

OLED is catching up with LCD in terms of resolution and LCD began to compete with OLED in respect of curvature and color.

There were competitions with regard to resolution between OLED and LCD in the history of smartphones. As the resolution of small and medium LCD improves in order to distinguish itself from OLED starting from 200ppi in 2010 to over 500ppi through the Retina (326ppi), OLED accomplished the equivalent resolution through the FMM mask and pentile technologies.

The LCD TV industries are anticipated to develop products with ultrahigh resolution in consideration of the small and medium OLED. And the OLED TV industries are reviewing the technologies to answer to this trend of ultrahigh resolution.

The resolution over 8K is available for OLED TV by either converting the bottom emission structure which is currently applied to the existing 4K OLED TV to the top emission structure with higher aperture ratio or producing the RGB OLED panel with the solution process.

Sony already developed and introduced the world’s first 4K OLED TV with the top emission technology at CES2013. Employed for Samsung Electronics’ Galaxy series, the top emission structure can be applied to a large area but the complication is in the transparent encapsulation.

It is hard to use the frit technology currently used in small and medium to a large OLED for its durability issue. The hybrid encapsulation method using the transparent encapsulation film emerges as the optimum alternative and the developments are set in that direction.

The substantial market growth is expected as the transparent hybrid encapsulation technology is critical in realizing a large area flexible OLED and transparent OLED besides the ultrahigh resolution using the top emission.

[Analyst Column] 2015 Samsung Electronics TV Marketing Strategy Analysis: Samsung is a genius of global marketing as expected

January 21, 2015/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

The product cited to pay close attention at this CES2015 was QD-BLU LCD TV. Exhibiting QD-BLU LCD TV at IFA 2014, the Chinese set makers already made it clear that it will be a new product to lead the Chinese market in 2015. The Chinese companies released 4K TV in the market for 2013 and it took about 60% of the world TV market in 2014.

Source: CES2015 Pre-press Conference

Mr. Koenig, the Industry Analysis Director of CEA, forecasted at CES 2015 pre-press event that the 57% of the market which is 13 million units will be in China by 2015.

Based on the domestic markets, the Chinese set companies are moving fast to secure the names implying the term QD and prepare PR and marketing strategies in order to lead the QD-BLU LCD TV market.

Succeeded in distinguishing itself from other competing companies, let alone the best TV quality in the world, Samsung Electronics took first place in the TV market share and developed the name LED TV to more strongly appeal its difference with LCD TV to potential customers. Though it is not a TV operating with LED but only the CCFL for backlight was replaced with LED, it is analyzed that this naming strategy enabled securing its competitiveness for achieving differentiation.

The Chinese set companies developed numerous TV names with the term QD imitating the successful examples of Samsung Electronics.

However, Samsung Electronics outmaneuvered the Chinese set companies again with another surprising marketing strategy. It adorned the CES 2015 press conference with the unexpected name of SUHD TV. It is because the name LED TV had a market monopolizing effect for Samsung used it exclusively for more than a year but the name QD shared with other competing companies of lesser-known brands will lower Samsung’s value as an absolute TV brand.

It seemed Samsung Electronics is emphasizing the notion of curved TV as a marketing factor to distinguish itself from other rival companies. The QD technology is a means to compete with OLED TV in terms of picture quality and it is analyzed that the curved TV is a key marketing strategy which already has secured the brand awareness as the world’s best design product in the curved TV market.

Yi Chung-hoon /Chief Analyst / UBI Research / ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

[Analyst Column] Watch issued for the promotion of QD-LED BLU LCD TV

December 30, 2014/in Analyst column, Focus on /by OLEDNET

Lately, the media, research institutes and stock firms are scrambling to release data on the marketability of QD-LCD TV which is the LCD TV applying the QD (quantum dot) materials to the LED backlight. In the strict sense, it is not a LCD technology but a backlight technology. The QD-LCD BLU (backlight unit) can be divided into the three types; one is applying the QD material directly to the LED chip, another is arranging it in front of the LED chip; and lastly it is placing it in between LCD and Light Guide Plate after filming by inserting the QD materials to the barrier film.

Source: Wikimedia,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QDEF_Exploded_Diagram.png

The QD-LED BLU is being recognized as a LCD TV technology that can compete with the OLED TV as it has a merit to improve the color reproducibility up to about 12 percent compared to the existing LED BLU. Until now, the LCD TV manufacturers take the notion of resolution as a major marketing means to compete with other products like PDP. And it was the same with the OLED case. However, the Apple iPhone highlighted the resolution as the biggest difference with the Galaxy S of Samsung Electronics but Samsung Electronics counter attacked with the color reproducibility as overcoming the resolution issue with the pentile technology, ranking the first in the market share. The LCD TV part, presenting the 4K and 8K TVs continuously, expected that the OLED TV won’t be able to catch up but LG Display is planning to come into the market from 2015 as developing the 4K OLED panel in the 55-inch with the oxide TFT and WRGB OLED technologies.

Given that the superiority of the OLED panel’s picture quality over that of LCD was verified through Samsung Electronics’ Galaxy S and LG Electronics’ OLED TV, the best way to defense for the companies with no available OLED TV to sell is the early release of QD-LED BLU LCD TV with the improved color reproducibility.

The products applying new technologies have been well received in the market. The problem is that promoting the QD-LED BLU LCD TV to the extent of highlighting excessively may cause the distortion of a market or capital. For instance, the domestic stock firms are indeed reporting that the QD-LED BLU LCD TV as a highly eco-friendly product with an efficient energy consumption. But it is known that the brightness of the QD-LED BLU LD TV is 30 percent less than the existing LED BLU LCD TV. If the brightness decreases, it requires more LED chip and more driving modules as well, raising the production cost. Moreover, it emits more heat in proportion to the added amount of LED chips, increasing the corresponding cost for heat dissipation.

It is expected that the application of the QD-LED BLU will be limited to the premium products as there are numerous factors causing the increase of the production cost in varied channels. Though it is true that the QD-LED BLU can provide better picture quality than the LCD TV, it must be clarified that it is not the product surpassing the LCD TV.

And the careful attention of various media in using the name ‘QD TV’ is needed in that it might confuse general customers. The QD technology is also a very fascinating and appealing technology for the OLED developers. They are already developing the OLED panel using the QD materials and the blue elements in the field of OLED panel manufacturing technology. Then, this OLED TV eventually becomes the QD TV. Accordingly, it must be noted that any reports written without the clear understanding of QD may cause a considerable social repercussion in the display market.

Choong-hoon Yi / Chief Analyst / UBI Research ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

[Analyst Column] G Watch R and Galaxy Gear S Structures and Disassembling Video

December 11, 2014/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

G Watch R and Galaxy Gear S by LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics respectively were disassembled to see their structures. First of all, much of the internal and external design concepts were quite similar. Claiming to be the classical sports type watch, the G Watch R is a smart watch emphasizing the sense of watch rather than its diverse smart functions while Galaxy Gear S was produced with a design of fashion watch. From dismantling both products, it was revealed that for G Watch R, the plastic OLED display which corresponds to the plate of watch is attached to the glass of the watch as shown by removing the back plate by unscrewing from the back side just like a regular watch and internal components, but for Galaxy Gear S, the flexible OLED panel was attached to the front side with adhesive so that the window detaches as applying heat to the front side.

<LG Electronics G Watch R>

Source: OLEDNET

< Samsung Electronics Galaxy Gear S>

Source: OLEDNET

In terms of the module design aspect including display, G Watch R shows dualised touch whereas Galaxy Gear S shows neatly unified look as FPCB. As the flexible OLED that Samsung Display is producing uses the touch screen of on-cell method, there is only one FPCB but for the plastic OLED of LG Display, it has the touch of add-on method, expected to have two FPCB to give signals.

<Panel of Gear S (Left) and G Watch R (Right)>

Source: OLEDNET

The radiation design is critical in the smart watch as a variety of components are concentrated in it. In case of G Watch R, the sections for the plastic OLED and electronic components are divide with a radiation sheet in between. For Galaxy Gear S, there is a small radiation sheet in the plastic component which separates the metal Foil assumed to be the Cu film to reduce heat generated from the display in the back side of display (refer to the image above) and component.

<Gear S (Left) and G Watch R (Right)’s Module>

Source: OLEDNET

Overall, the conclusion drawn from disassembling both products analyzed that G Watch R took the design of classical watch not only for the look but also the internal structures while Galaxy Gear S, the strong one in the smart phone market, seems to be a fashionable device inheriting the genes of a smart phone.

Yi Choong-hoon /Chief Analyst / UBI Research / ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

[Analyst Column] Solution Process OLED to be released from 2016

November 28, 2014/in Analyst column, Focus on /by OLEDNET

The possibility to mass produce AMOLED panel in RGB structure by solution process was confirmed after the appearance of the solution process 4K OLED TV by Panasonic in 2013 and as AUO unveils the 65-inch FHD AMOLED panel at SID 2104 which uses hybrid process of employing inkjet printing method and deposition method simultaneously.

According to the Solution Process OLED Report 2014 issued by the UBI Research on the 26^th, it is expected to release AMOLED panel by solution process by 2016 considering the stages of the process equipment and materials developments up to now.

The solution process is producing OLED by printing the material of liquid condition. The efficiency of the material usage in case of the existing RGB deposition method is as low as about 10%, requiring complicated processes and it is difficult to apply to the large area substrate.

The efficiency is theoretically 100% for the solution process, resulting cost saving and even the process of RGB method without cutting the substrate at the 8^thgeneration line is possible.

However, there are remaining issues to be resolved as the material property is low compared to the deposition material and it is unavailable to produce high resolution panel.

The personnel from the UBI Research reported that the analysis shows the probability to produce from 8.4-inch FHD panel to 8K high resolution panel over 30 inches in RGB method for it is possible to print up to 300ppi as the printing error reduces. The present OLED panel for tablet PC has a resolution of about 262ppi because it was produced in PenTile method. Now, the large area panel as well as the RGB OLED panel for tablet PC are mass produces as a result of the solution process allowing up to 300ppi.

[Figure : The scope of panel available for the solution peocess]

Also the property of emitting material was improved. Assumed from the analysis of properties announced so far, the efficiencies of red and green among other emitting materials for the solution process are developed close to the deposition material. Especially for the green, the small molecular material for the solution process appears to be more efficient than the polymer material for the deposition.

“Considering the development level of the material and process equipment for the solution process, the AMOLED panel produced in the solution process will be released actively from 2016, and in view of the current line conditions of panel companies, the investment ability, and technical situations, it is expected to produce the AMOLED panel for the tablet PC at first” said the personnel from the UBI Research.

In addition, the AMOLED panel market for the solution process will be the size of $380 million with the average annual growth rate of 141% by 2017 as the material for the solution process is anticipated to have the full competitiveness by the same year.

Yi Choong-hoon /Chief Analyst / UBI Research / ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

[Analyst Column] Samsung Display, shooting for the future of display

November 11, 2014/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

The DVCE (Display Valley Conference & Exhibition), supported by Samsung Display is held in every November in Asan, Chungcheongnam-do as one of the major events in the region which has established its position as a mecca of display industry. It is an international conference created by the active support from Samsung Display for the purpose of local development and industrial development of display business and it is the 10^th year of DVCE in 2014.

In the first day of DVCE on the 11^th, Hak-sun Kim, the vice president of Samsung Display gave a key note speech titled “Display Beyond Imagination”, suggesting the future directions for display through humanistic considerations.

Given that most of display related conferences or seminars are primarily of hardware or technology associated contents, this was the first occasion that the directions for the future display was proposed. Comparing the display with the history of art, Kim defined a new technology market to converge analog and digital. He mentioned the necessity to produce creative display by employing new functions in display as famous art masters have created innovative artworks by developing various techniques.

In particular, he has emphasized that it is critical to produce a human-friendly product as a human interface through fundamental understanding and reflection on the light and human eyes when developing a display. Kim proposed a vision for the future of the convergence product equipped with varied functions like lighting and eye, bio sensor, haptic sensor, etc. through the techniques employed by the artists like lighting and perspective, trompe I’oeil, texture, etc.

Kim expressed sincere regret for the decrease of display industry in Korea where new products are no longer produced, claiming the need for engineers who develop displays to converge and combine by means of humanistic consideration in order to promote display industry.

Yi Choong-hoon /Chief Analyst / UBI Research / ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr

[Analyst Column]For OLED Panel Late Starters, Securing High-Resolution Mask is Crucial

October 21, 2014/in Analyst column /by OLEDNET

The Chinese display companies like Visionox, Tianma, etc. are preparing the development and commercialization of OLED panel with BOE at the head. To keep up with the present leading company, Samsung Display, these second movers must be equipped with both product quality and reasonable price.

As the front runners of OLED panel, Samsung Display is maintaining the exclusive market for rigid type OLED which is made of a glass, and LG Display is producing the plastic (flexible) OLED panel using PI substrate for mobile devices.

The OLED panel is produced in QD resolution as a mobile device changes to adopt a high-resolution, but it is not a real resolution but uses a pentile method. For Samsung Display and LG Display are the two leading companies of the OLED industry, the supply chain is very firmly structured. So the relatively latecomers in this industry have difficulties in getting good materials and components from the suppliers who have intimate relationship with these two companies from the materials to equipment and components providers.

Furthermore, the established companies are managing and controlling the ecology of the industries to exclude the rival companies, preventing suppliers from providing products to the competing companies or late starters. Due to these strategies, the new comers are unable to secure sufficient resources for the development.

A typical component is a shadow mask which is critical for high-resolution. Known as a fine metal mask, this mask is an essential element to produce a high-resolution OLED of RGB structure and the shadow mask made of about a 40um thin plate to produce the high-resolution OLED which is more than 300 ppi but it is hard to find suppliers for the late comers.

BOE is seriously reviewing the matter of developing the OLED of WRGB structure to solve the shadow mask issue. The WRGB OLED does not require a fine metal mask as it uses the emitting materials in layers. The WRGB OLED creates the white light and realizes colors through the color filter.

Tianma is in the process of developing the slot type mask splitting the shadow mask.

<Tianma, divided mask slot type>

Yi Choong-hoon /Chief Analyst / UBI Research / ubiyi@ubiresearch.co.kr