In anticipation of US reciprocal tariffs, shippers have been frontloading cargo since late 2024 and US ports, for the most part, have been able to handle the increased shipments without significant congestion as much product has been offloaded to local warehouses.  With the implementation and subsequent 90-day postponement of the reciprocal tariffs, and the additional tariffs placed on Chinese goods, there are a number of indications that Chinese container bookings are being cancelled, with the Port of LA indicating late last week that it has received notice of 12 potential cancellations.  As Chinese shippers have built US inventory, they can hold new shipments for a while as landed inventory gets worked down, but smaller US importers are unable to deal with the on-again-off-again tariff situation as easily.
A recent Freightos survey of small business importers in the US revealed that on a general basis the average rate of ‘concern’ over the tariff situation was 8.9 out of 10, with 62% of respondents choosing 10.   We have seen some panel producers indicate that they are trying to make production adjustments on a bi-weekly basis as customers rapidly change plans in this volatile environment, but small businesses are far less able to make such short-term  alterations to schedules.  When asked what their thoughts were concerning the administration’s plans for further tariff changes, here’s what they said:

• 51.3% said there is no way to know
• 22.6% said they expected tariffs to be reduced
• 17.4% said they expected tariffs to be increased
• 8.7% said they expected tariffs to remain the same

More significant was the response to the increased global and Chinese tariffs from a business perspective:

• 33% have paused shipments entirely
• 29% are exploring sourcing outside of affected regions
• 29% will ‘wait and see’
• 19% are accelerating shipments

Aside from the obvious planning issues that face both large and small CE product shippers, even with the exceptions we have noted previously, small importers face cash flow issues as they now have higher upfront customs costs that they cannot always pass on to customers.  Some are now itemizing shipping costs on invoices to make customers aware of how substantial the changes are, and a number of survey respondents indicated that they would not be able to remain in business if current tariffs remained in place for an extended period.  Many indicated that they are unable to source in the US at a reasonable cost and a number of companies we have spoken with indicated that while they can make relatively small changes between production locations, establishing production in the US would take years and would be limited to higher value products that could absorb higher production costs.
All in, while the tariffs themselves are a serious issue for small CE importers, the uncertainty around tariff policy and the lack of a coherent plan seems to be the real issue that leads to questioning whether some can sustain their business in light of their inability to plan for or recover some of the additional customs costs that still remain.  With the administration threatening additional tariffs, new port call fees for Chinese vessels, and the end to the de minimis exemption for direct-to-consumer shipping on May 3, small importers are facing  serious issues that can cause further disruptions to their business or end it entirely, not the desired goal of current tariff programs. We expect some front loading to resume again as we get closer to July, but the inevitability of price increases to cover higher overall shipping and/or sourcing costs will begin to show as pre-April inventory is reduced.  Large producers can absorb much of the increased cost and reduced cash flow, while smaller ones cannot.

Samsung Display’s (pvt) QD/OLED display technology has faced some significant challenges.  Developed to bring Samsung Display into the large panel OLED business, which has been dominated by LG Display’s (LPL) WOLED panels, there seemed to be some skepticism from SDC’s parent Samsung Electronics (005930.KS).  We expect some of that skepticism came from low initial yields for QD/OLED, with Samsung needing a reliable source of high volume production before committing to the technology, but SDC persevered and refined production processes to more normalized yields.  Samsung Electronics adopted the technology in 2022 with 55” and 65” TV models, their first large panel OLED offerings since abandoning large panel OLED technology in 2013 and has maintained QD/OLED’s presence with additional sizes since then.  However with relatively limited production capabilities (~750,000 TV sets/year assuming 75% yield), Samsung seems to still be wary of relying solely on QD/OLED technology for its large panel OLED line and has purchased WOLED panels from LG Display to augment its large panel OLED offerings.
Quality does not seem an issue, in fact QD/OLED has been lauded for its color purity, color volume and higher peak brightness than WOLED displays, but despite these positive points parent Samsung still does not seem to have jumped into the QD/OLED pool deep-end and is offering both QD/OLED and WOLED (from LGD) to TV consumers, in some cases without disclosing which technology they are getting.  That said,  it seems that QD/OLED has found a home, and one that Samsung Electronics  seems to be in sync with; monitors, high-end monitors in particular.  Gamers, who look for high quality reproduction and rapid response time have been impressed with Samsung Display’s QD/OLED monitor product and a number of monitor brands have taken to QD/OLED for their flagship gaming monitors.
A quick look at Amazon (AMZN) or Best Buy (BBY) shows just under a dozen brands with at least one QD/OLED monitor offering, with sizes ranging from 27” to 49” and prices ranging from $589 to $1,285.  Considering that you can buy a 27” LCD monitor for under $100 and a 27” OLED monitor for under $500, QD/OLED monitors are certainly considered high-end, with most labeled ‘gaming monitors’ specifically.  Companies like MSI (2377.TT) and ASUS (2357.TT) offer quite a few QD/OLED models, along with more standard OLED and LCD models, while Samsung, maintains the lead, recently releasing the first 27” QD/OLED gaming monitor with a 500 Hz refresh rate (that unusually high refresh rate is particularly attractive to gamers who thrive on being able to see rapid screen movements without lag).  With this new high refresh rate QD/OLED monitor and other recent 27” QD/OLED entries, QD/OLED is expected to increase its share of the 27” OLED monitor market from 32% last year to 47% this year.
While OLED monitors overall are still a small part of the general monitor market, roughly between 1.4 and 1.5m units out of between 150m and 155m, over the last few years, QD/OLED has become the standard bearer for high-end gaming monitors, and their share of the OLED monitor market is expected to increase from 68% last year to 73% this year.  With  only one 30,000 sheet/month QD/OLED fab, SDC can either produce ~700,000 QD/OLED TVs or ~3m+ monitor panels.  With large panel OLED (TV) growth relatively slow and OLED monitor growth increasing, the likely higher per unit profitability on monitors than on TVs, it would seem that QD/OLED has found a new home.  With considerable room for QD/OLED technology improvement that can widen the gap between WOLED and QD/OLED, it seems a more comfortable home than the technology battles that rage between LCD, Mini-LED, QD, and WOLED in the TV space

Actors have it rough.  They have to compete with other actors for even the most lowly roles and can go for years or even a lifetime without making enough money to buy a car that is under 10 years old or live in an apartment without roommates.  After years of rejection, disappointment, and relatives asking, “Does he have a real job yet?”, when an opportunity to offer your smiling countenance up for a few thousand bucks comes along, it has to be considered. 
Such was the case with struggling Korean actor Simon Lee, who signed his image over to an AI marketing company, thinking the money would help him move his acting career forward.  Instead he was horrified to see himself on TikTok and Instagram, dressed as a surgeon or a gynecologist, hawking dubious healthcare products.  The contract he signed, likely extremely one-sided, did not allow him to have any say in how his image was used and gave him no ‘removal’ options, leaving his image available to sell weight-loss remedies and other questionable products.
AI marketing firms, as we have noted in the past, develop a menu of human-based facial and body images that they sell/rent to clients who can use them for whatever their needs.  The larger the model gallery, the more chance a potential client will see a face they like and sign on with the agency.  From the agency’s perspective, buying a human image for a few thousand dollars gives them the potential to resell it many times over, at a cost that is lower than what it would cost to film an actor for each client spot, and that digital image can be molded into whatever the client believes will sell the most product. 
In Mr. Lee’s case he became a doctor in order to legitimize sketchy products, which were a bit less helpful to his career than he might have thought when signing the contract.  A few hours of filming movements and facial expressions seemed an easy job for a few thousand dollars but unless a lawyer  reviewed the contract (most likely not), he gave up all of his rights, (no pornography, alcohol or tobacco ads are usually highlighted in the contract to give a sense of protection the actor’s image), while including fine print that allows the agency to use the image for almost anything else.
It’s a new world and those looking to capitalize on it, either legitimately or not, have the early advantage as the legal system is slow to understand the nuance of AI and digital advertising.  Since there are few legal protections specific to human image use, before you decide to sell your image to an agency, have a lawyer read the contract, even if it means sleeping in your car for a few more days…

"The adoption of 5G will [be] even faster than what we saw on 4G, which was already fairly fast."[1]
"5G is the fundamental platform for the fourth industrial revolution and will become an integral part of societies and civil infrastructures, just like roads, energy and transportation."[2]
"Every generation of wireless technology has brought a huge and largely unseen step forward in innovation. 2G brought us two-way texting. 3G brought us high-quality digital voicemail. 4G bought us Waze, Uber and DoorDash, none of which were envisioned when 4G was rolled out. So 5G is really going to bring us things that we haven’t even imagined yet."[3]
"5G will be the platform linking billions of devices together."[4]
"The arrival of 5G-enabling smart devices will change the way we live, work, and think in fascinating, new ways."[5]
"5G networking is being phased in and will be transformative to society."[6]
Back in 2019, when 5G was first released, it was to be a game changer, providing a high-speed gateway into a new world of devices and applications with unmatched speed and the capacity to link together, well, almost everything.  The promise of a new era of VR was particularly emphasized, with real-time multiplayer gaming, live VR events, and remote collaboration revolutionizing how we are entertained and work, along with the promise of a new healthcare model that allowed doctors to perform complex surgery remotely.  All part of the 5G hype.
Now that 5G has been around for 5+ years, how much of that came true and how much was justification for the spending that carriers knew was coming as 5G rollouts began?  The answer is that neither the glass half full or the glass half empty crowd had any clue about 5G at the time, but they do now.  Fierce Wireless just completed a survey of 176 telco executives (36% are decision makers, 64% are decision influencers) who made their opinion concerning 5G quite plain.
The good news is

• 10% said they believe 5G has been ‘Extremely successful’
• 23% said 5G has been ‘Successful with good ROI’

But…

• 60% said they have had ‘limited success with 5G so far’ (They see it as a long-term return product).
• 7% say they are disappointed with 5G.

So 33% say they see it as a positive, while 67% don’t.  With the 2019 promise of 5G as a world-changing technology comes the reality of what actual benefits 5G has provided for the consumer and telcos.  It seems that telcos are a bit less than impressed with what they have gained from 5G and consumers, well we would be surprised if most consumers realized that they were using 5G at all.  We have doubts that much remote surgery is being done and VR certainly has not been the focus for the average consumer, so what is 5G really being used for ?
The survey says the number one use for 5G is for Fixed Wireless Access, the process by which 5G connects a fiber-optic or microwave backhaul to a local base station which uses 5G’s bandwidth to wirelessly connect to 5G antennas on houses or businesses, which is then connected to an internal modem at each location.  This allows 5G’s high speed and low latency without the high cost of fiber or cable installation, along with rapid deployment time. 48% of telco executives believe that FWA is the key 5G application.  There are limitations for FWA, particularly the need for line-of-sight between base stations and consumer nodes, but FWA is expected to reach over 98m connections this year (global) compared to over 58m last year.
The 2nd most important 5G application, according to telco executives, is network slicing (33%).  Network slicing uses software to define customized virtual networks that share the same physical 5G infrastructure but are isolated from each other.  This allows the 5G spectrum to be used most efficiently, without allocating static network blocks that are not used consistently.  This is a great plus for carriers as they can reallocate 5G bandwidth to those customers experiencing high demand and remove it from those with low demand.  That said, in order for 5G network slicing to be effective the 5G infrastructure that it is operating on has to be 5G standalone (SA), not 5G NSA (Non-standalone), a 5G overlay on top of 4G LTE infrastructure.  The majority of global 5G infrastructure is still NSA and SA is not expected to become the dominant technology until 2028.  The 3rd most important 5G application to telco executives is private wireless, which allows for a completely secure network (24%) and is more profitable for carriers.
When asked about what have been the biggest barriers to 5G deployment there were few surprises with cost having the highest percentage at 39%, followed by 29% citing a lack of in-house 5G expertise.  But when it came to the question of how important 5G is to enterprise customers, not surprisingly, 78% of carriers executives said either ‘critical’ or ‘important’ with only 22% calling it ‘one of many factors or ‘don’t care’.  Of course, when asking that question to those whose livelihood depends on 5G, it should be expected that there will be some bias.
As par for the course, there was a question about AI in relation to 5G, and while we expected AI-based network slicing to be the winner (it was at 24%) AI-based predictive maintenance came in a close 2nd at 22%, with only 9% citing the use of chatbots to enhance customer support or the overall customer experience.  When the final question came up, it was easier to see a bit of frustration with 5G come to the surface.  The final question was “Do you see a need for 6G in 2030?”  51% said yes, as new applications will require it, but 43% said no, with 5G advanced being sufficient and 6% saying they did not even want to hear about 6G.
As with most new technologies, the tendency is to overpromise and underperform, and while that seems to be the case with 5G at least to some, consumers seem oblivious.  While they are able to download a game or video faster and are likely to see less ‘loading’ time for videos, 5G applications are primarily higher level applications that carriers would find most beneficial.  What is surprising to us is how slowly 5G has been deployed globally, despite the hype in the early days, but given that cost was the biggest sticking point for carrier deployment and the fact that not all carriers seem to be making money from 5G, it is logical that deployment has slowed from the days when it was imperative that we install 5G faster than  China.  Does that sound strangely familiar?
BTW, we admit that we had expected mmWave 5G (much higher frequency, leading to higher speed, expanded bandwidth and even lower latency) would be even more popular than sub-6.  We were wrong as mmWave was just too expensive to support itself, as the base station to base station distance is only 600 to 1200 feet, making it only suitable in urban areas and stadiums, so we cut the carriers a little slack…


[1] Ignacio Contreras, Qualcomm’s director of marketing for 5G

[2] Top executives at Verizon

[3] Dolan Beckel, director of the Office of Civic Innovation and Digital Strategy for the city of San José, Calif.

[4] Serhat Terzioğlu, at the World Economic Forum in Davos

[5] Business Today

[6] Streaming Media

In 2024 China shipped 314.6m mobile phones, up 8.7% y/y, marking the 2nd consecutive year that shipments have increased y/y.  86.4% of phones shipped were 5G models, the highest for any year (2023 was 82.2%), and 85.6% of shipments were domestic (Chinese) brands.  As can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2, after a dismal 2022 and 2023, China’s smartphone market has recovered, albeit modestly.
So far this year (Jan/Feb data only) January smartphone shipments were down 14.2% y/y, but February shipments were up 37.9% y/y and above the 5-year average by over 25%.  On January 20, the Chinese government added smartphones to its “New for Old” consumer product subsidy program, which we expect accounted for the strong February results.  While we expect continued strength in smartphone shipments in the domestic Chinese market, we expect consumers took advantage of the subsidy at the onset, and front-loaded February shipments.  March is  typically a strong shipment month, so we can see how much front-loading was done in February through the March shipments when they are released.
While the domestic situation for Chinese smartphone brands improves, the current trade war with the US, despite recent smartphone exceptions, still requires that Chinese smartphone brands entering the US pay an import tariff of between 20% and 25%, which, unless absorbed by the brand, will make them less attractive against other non-Chinese brands.  The most common Chinese brands entering the US are:

• One Plus (pvt) – Offered through all three major US carriers, although estimates for US sales are between 5% and 10% of company totals.
• TCL (000100.CH) – Typically sold unlocked.  Estimates are for between 10% and 15% of total sales to the US.
• Motorola – Owned by China’s Lenovo (992.HK) and sold through all US carriers and retailers.  Roughly 20% to 30% of total sales (estimated) are in the US.
• ZTE (000063.CH) – While most consumers believe ZTE smartphones are banned in the US (They were in 2018, but they paid a $1.4b fine and the ban was lifted), pre-paid phones from Metro (TMUS) are made by ZTE, but the numbers are small.

While other Chinese smartphone brand phones are sold in the US, the numbers are small and most have no official presence in the US.  However, even though  the recent exemptions  from additional tariffs have given the Chines smartphone brands shown above a bit of breathing room, the administration has promised to ‘investigate’ the matter further, essentially threatening new phone tariffs.  Chinese brands already work for very tight margins, so should any new smartphone tariffs be levied on Chinese brands, they will likely have to pass most of the incremental cost on to consumers.
That said, they have one thing in their favor, Apple (AAPL) who has been able to lobby the President to postpone another massive Chinese tariff increase.  While Apple is still a competitor, it has considerable production in China, and therefore works toward the same goals as Chinese brands in this instance.  As Apple continues to shift iPhone production away from China that will dissipate, leaving Chinese brands to fend for themselves, an unenviable position at best, at least for the next 3.5 years.

Autonomous vehicles seem to continue to fascinate entrepreneurs, hardware developers, and automobile manufacturers around the globe, although it also seems obvious that such vehicles might not be completely ready to roam the open roads, and since June of 2021,  ADS crashes involving autonomous systems must be reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration if the system was in use withing 30 seconds of the crash and property damage or injury occurred.  Requirements get more stringent with each level, although there are so few vehicles with level 3+ systems due to state and other restrictions that there is little crash data.
Regardless of the available data, it would seem that while ADS and ADAS (level 2 ) systems are getting more sophisticated, they still require both careful use and full driver management.  Level 3 and above need more time for refinements, particularly lots of time in a controlled environment.  We think of that test zone as a very large parking lot where there are a few vehicles with test drivers rather than a public road.  What if you could have a parking lot that was hundreds of miles wide?  Wouldn’t this be the ideal testbed for an autonomous vehicle?

Instead of a vehicle, how about a ship?  Not an aircraft carrier or a giant cargo ship, but smaller, scalable, and relatively inexpensive fully autonomous craft that could be trained and deployed on the high seas with little chance of potential accidents.  The US Navy has been working on such a program for years, although including air (drones) and ground systems, but the accelerated conflicts that the US Navy faces daily, such as those in the Red Sea or in the South China Sea, make the necessity for such systems an absolute. 
Recently a company, Blue Water Autonomy (pvt) came out of stealth mode after raising $14m of seed capital and indicated that they have been developing such a ship for the Navy.  The company, founded by a former Navy officer who became the founder of 6 River Systems[1] (pvt) (sold to Ocado Group (pvt)) after a stint at Amazon (AMZN) Robotics, a former VP of Engineering at iRobot (IRBT), and an MIT grad who helped Ukraine collect front line data with drones.  Given this level of expertise and experience, the company developed a concept ship design in less than a year and has already begun saltwater testing of a 100 ton prototype for the US Navy.
The idea behind the autonomous ships is to make the design scalable and low-cost, allowing for modular payloads, giving the ship the ability to perform a wide variety of services.  But why does it need to be autonomous? 
China is ahead of the US in naval shipbuilding, making competition at the carrier and cruiser level difficult, but by employing large numbers of smaller autonomous ships, long duration patrols, surveillance, border patrol, and electronic warfare (jamming, etc.) can more easily be accomplished, without risk of life.  Such ships could easily be outfitted for logistics or resupply, search & rescue, or even mine recovery, but there are some things that autonomous ships can do that are far different than what goes on in more traditional naval warfare. 
If you have seen New Year or 4th of July celebrations recently, you have probably seen drone ‘swarms’ that can spell out words or create images using hundreds of linked drones.  Autonomous ships, especially small, less detectable ones, can do the same, linking themselves electronically and moving together as if they are a larger vessel.  This technique can be used to fool adversaries into thinking they are outnumbered or outgunned, when the ships involved are small and less far less equipped.  This ability to link systems also allows these ships to operate without human supervision in difficult circumstances or when given a specific task, such as a general command like “Return to base, restock fuel and return to location to refuel XYZ”
While we understand that the lure of being the supplier of millions of autonomous vehicles is unbelievably attractive to both large and small companies, it is also one that will take years to refine enough to where autonomous vehicle accidents will not be any more significant that those caused by human drivers.  It seems a smart idea to work such systems in a larger ‘parking lot’ like and ocean, where the chances of hitting something are far less than on the East River Drive or the 101.  JOHO.


[1] Warehouse robotics

While there are still a few murky areas, Friday’s exemptions to the latest round of tariffs afford the CE space a bit of breathing room during the 90-day postponement of President Trump’s reciprocal tariff program.  At least as far as can be seen based on current White House statements, while the exemptions shown below remove the additional tariffs placed on specific Chinese goods entering the US, they are still subject to tariffs that were placed on said products previously, which we believe amount to ~50% on most semiconductor products.  Therefore exemptions only seem to remove the last round of additional tariffs, leaving those previously levied.
All of this said, the President and cabinet officials continue to insist that new semiconductor and similar tariffs are ‘under investigation’, but with no timeframe attached, only give very near-term relief to CE companies, doing nothing for mid-term or long-term planning.  CE companies can always make promises to shift more capacity to the US, but in most cases such commitments will take years to plan and execute.  For those that are willing to make such a commitment, we remind them that Foxconn (2354.TT) still has plenty of room at its Wisconsin “6th Wonder of the World” manufacturing center, even after Microsoft’s (MSFT) $3.3b data center construction plans for a portion of the site.  As of January (2025), Microsoft has put two of the three Foxconn site projects on hold[1]
While the Friday semiconductor exemptions give CE companies a bit of breathing room, the volatility remains, and while it will take some time for Trump-aligned CE companies to come up with satisfactory plan for production in the US, placating headlines can be created by leaking that some production has been shifted out of China, preferably to an existing production location with low potential reciprocal tariff liabilities.  Given how often the trade situation changes, we expect only those countries or even companies that are so desperate to maintain trade with the US will make more substantial concessions until more trade stability can be maintained.  Rumors stating that some of Apple’s (AAPL) production lines in China have been shuttered have been denied by suppliers, but we expect more of the same until a more stable policy can be established, 1,307 days left…
Semiconductor exemptions

• 8471:  Automatic data processing machines, magnetic or optical readers, machines  for processing such data, including (847330) parts & accessories.  While not specifically mentioned, it seems to cover all desktop and laptop computers.
• 8486: Tools for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, semiconductor devices, electronic integrated circuits or flat panel displays.
• 85171300: Smartphones.
• 85176200: Routers, modems, and network equipment  
• 85235100: Solid-state non-volatile storage devices.
• 8524: Flat panel display modules, with or without touch
• 85285200: Computer monitors.
• 85411000: Diodes, other than photosensitive or light-emitting diodes.
• 85412100: Transistors, with a dissipation rate of less than 1W.
• 85412900:  Transistors, with a dissipation rate greater than 1W.
• 85413000:  Thyristors, diacs and triacs, other than photosensitive devices.
• 85414910, 85414970, 85414980, 85414995:   Photosensitive semiconductor devices, meaning LEDs and other light-sensitive sensors.  
• 85415100: More specific to LEDs.
• 85415900: This covers pretty much any semiconductor that has not been covered previously, and parts (85419000) including piezoelectric crystals
• 8542: Broad coverage of Microprocessors (CPUs), Memory chips (RAM, ROM), Logic, Amplifiers, Processors and controllers.

We note also that ‘certain critical minerals’ were also excluded from the additional Chinese tariffs, and while not specified, we can guess at a few of them, particularly the ones for which the US relies almost exclusively on China.  Yttrium and Scandium fall under the 280530 code, with Yttrium used in red display phosphors, YAG lasers, microwave (radar) filters, automobile exhaust sensors, superconductors, and in fuel cells.  The US imported over 400,000 kg. of Yttrium in 2023, with China being the source for 99.2% and 94% for yttrium compounds.  Even a simpler material such as graphite, used to line furnaces, for lithium-ion batteries, as a lubricant, in electric motors, and, of course, in pencils, is not produced in the US, which buys 42% of its common graphite and 100% of its battery grade graphite from China.  China has put some limitations on where such materials may be exported, but they have yet to take a hardline when it comes to strategic materials tariffs.   are an area where the US


[1]  While no public details have been given as to why the postponement by Microsoft was made, the company has reduced data center capacity plans in a number of locations this year.

We have noted recently that Sony (SNE) has shown a prototype of a new Mini-LED backlight system that uses colored LEDs instead of the usual white (or blue) LEDs.  The system, which is expected to be commercialized sometime this year, should be able to deliver color purity that would rival OLED (See “Resurrection” (03/24/25) for more details).  However, Chinese TV set brand Hisense (600060.CH) also announced a similar RGB Mini-LED 116” set that would directly compete with Sony and others who are developing the same technology including Samsung (005930.KS), LG Electronics (066570.KS), and TCL (000100.CH).
While RGB backlight technology has the potential to enhance the quality of LCD based TV sets, once again extending the life of LCD as a display technology, there are two questions that must be answered when evaluating whether RGB backlight technology will be a gamechanger, or whether it will be just a marketing gimmick to bring shoppers over to the premium TV set section on the retail floor. 
The first is whether enough TV set buyers will be able to discern enough of a difference between Tv sets using RGB backlights and those using more standard white or blue backlights.  Unfortunately much of the feedback on RGB backlight systems comes from those at shows where such displays are being shown, and most of those viewers are there because they either work in the CE industry or report on it.  This leads to a more biased view of new display technologies and one that is a bit removed from that of the average consumer, so the true test will come when such sets are on the floor at Best Buy (BBY) or WalMart (WMT).
​

The second issue is price.  Most new display technologies, when initially released, carry a large price tag, as in many cases the sets are produced almost by hand until brands are able to develop cost-effective mass production processes.  A good example would be Samsung’s Micro-LED TVs (vastly different from Mini-LED TVs), which when released last June started at $110,000 for an 89” set and climbed to a jaw dropping $150,000 for the 114” set, putting them at the very top of the premium Tv market.  This does not lead to large sales volume but can be used as a banner for the entire premium Tv line.

However, things are different now.  The battle for supremacy in the display and TV markets is no longer a gentlemen’s game, where a civil meeting between rivals might have been held to discuss ways to avoid conflicts.  Now Chinese brands are willing to take that same discussion out to the back alley if they think they can gain share over incumbents, with those battles being waged primarily with product pricing.  It has become ever more difficult for brands that are known for their premium pricing, Sony in particular, to offer a new technology or improvement at such lofty prices, as Chinese CE companies are not only able to quickly match the technology, but are willing to offer it at a far more reasonable price.
​

One might expect Sony, if and when they commercialize their RGB Mini-LED TV, to offer it at a steep premium to other models, especially if it is offered in an extra-large size format. While that is certainly a strong possibility, Chinese brand Hisense has recently announced that it will be releasing its own RGB Mini-LED TV set this month.  What makes that unusual is that Hisense was the first to market with the technology AND at a low-enough initial price that both limits the premium that others might charge and also incorporates it into the largest Mini-LED TV available to retail customers.
We took a quick look at the XXL TV set segment (only sets 100” or larger) to see how the Hisense RGB set pricing compared to other generic XXL Mini-LED sets and here is what we found:

​The Hisense RGB Mini-LED TV is priced (in China) at ~$13,780 US, and we note that it is a 116” model, one inch larger than others on the diagonal (1.64% larger in area), but instead of being offered at a massive premium, like the Samsung Micro-LED 114” model, its price is more comparable to 100” generic Mini-LED backlight models, along with its value on a price- to-area basis.  This will make it more difficult for Sony, Samsung, and others  to introduce their versions at the lofty premiums they might normally use, especially if their sets are smaller than the Hisense model, essentially lowering the price bar before the market has even developed.
Of course, we take into consideration that RGB backlight technology will have a higher cost both in the fact that each backlight ‘pixel’ is comprised of three (RGB) LEDs instead of one, and the driving circuitry for each pixel is now far more complex and costly to produce.  That said, either Hisense has found ways to keep costs low, even during early production, or they are willing to forgo product profitability in order to maintain a share lead over rivals (TCL in China) and in South Korea and Japan.  Sony, Samsung, and LG will now have to find another feature to add to their initial RGB backlight Mini-LED sets when they are released, in order to garner a price premium over Hisense, likely something they were not planning for until recently.

​If you are thinking about becoming a coder after you have finished school, you likely already know about LeetCode, a software application designed to help you study coding, practice, and improve your coding ability.  It contains a large database of coding problems and exercises that help users to improve their skills, along with sets of tools (editors, debuggers, forums, etc.).  However a portion of LeetCode’s content is also designed to help one prepare for a ‘technical interview’, such as one might encounter if applying for a coding job at a large corporation, with common interview questions, practice algorithms, and data structures that can be used to simulate what might be asked in an interview.  This makes LeetCode an ideal tool for interview preparation, and also provides interviewers with lots of potential coding questions that can be ‘asked’ during an interview.
As is human nature, even the smartest of us has pangs of inferiority (except Elon Musk), as did a sophomore in Columbia’s Department of Computer Science, as he used a self-developed ‘cheating tool’ that improved his interview performance enough to receive employment offers from Amazon (AMZN) , Meta (FB) TikTok (pvt) and Capital One (COF).  The cheating tool (named ‘Interview Coder’) acts as an invisible plug-in that cannot be detected by software used for remote test monitoring and is able to create perfect answers to questions with a few minor flaws.  That said, after it was discovered that the sophomore had cheated on his interviews, he was expelled. 
Interviewers look for those that are constantly glancing at the right or left during interviews, or those that are just a bit slower to answer a verbal question (waiting for the answer to come up on another computer), but the ‘Interview Coder’ is much smarter than that and was specifically designed to deal with LeetCode content.  Interviewers favor LeetCode content because it is easier to pull questions from LeetCode than it is to write hundreds of original ones. However ‘Interview Coder’s’ ability to be a ‘hidden’ window and to use system permissions  to bypass the browser’s recording processes, while it remains an open widow on the cheaters computer that can be queried without any cursor movement or keyboard tracking.  It can even break down complex or ambiguous questions into sections to make sure the cheater can answer them with a complete level of understanding and can copy them directly to the test, with a few spelling or grammatical errors thrown in.
Looking to capitalize on his new application after his fall from grace at Columbia, the former sophomore put the app on Github, where it immediately gained large scale recognition.  At a cost of $3,000/month for server support, a $60/month user price, and a 99% profit margin, the app took in $228,500 in its first month, and less than 2 months after its launch it had an annual recurring revenue of $2.2m.  He marketed the application through social media, posting pictures of himself cheating on exams..
LeetCode questions have been long criticized as ~90% having little or nothing to do with actual day-to-day coding work.  Despite that fact, Google (GOOG) uses it for interviews that can take up to 300 hours of answering coding questions.  As the pass rate for those exams is less than 2% it is not surprising that the application is so popular, especially when the typical competitive ratio for a single position garners over 200 interview candidates, making the $60/month fee against a $100,000+ job easy to justify.

​We would like to take a moment to introduce a new member of the SCMR staff.  Previously, when we needed to illustrate a concept of create a visual for a story, we spent hours searching for ‘just the right’ image.  Unfortunately, many of such images are only available for license, leaving us to hope that ShutterStock or similar organization would not notice.  We were happy to credit companies or organizations that supplied us with product images, and we continue to create technical illustrations ourselves, but in order to shorten our image search time, we let our illustration search team go, and hired Imagen 3, a cutting-edge text-to-image model developed by Google DeepMind. 
Imagen 3 is extremely easy to use and as you might have noticed, is able to create images that illustrate a point with only a few sentences of text and perhaps a single redo.  However Imagen 3’s most important feature is that it is free and is already built into Gemini.  So unless it’s a technical illustration or a product photo, most of the images seen recently (and going forward) have ben created by this collaboration between SCMR LLC and Imagen 3.  
Of course this is a remote position for Imagen 3 so he/she/it is unable to say hello, but while we are cautious about the reliability of AI in general, Imagen 3 has been doing exemplary work over the last few weeks!  Please note that any images not attributed are therefore either developed directly by us or in conjunction with Imagen 3.  While Imagen 3 could not be with us right now, we asked him/her/it to create an image of how it would like to be visualized (see below)