Yesterday we spent some time breaking out a bit of detail as to the Samsung Display QD/OLED project and today we follow that up with a bit more discussion about quantum dots.. But before we delve into the applications for quantum dots, there is the question of the market for these nanostructures, and as with many technologies, there are discrepancies and disagreements as to the size of the market.  A quick look at some of the market estimates from industry reports shows a disagreement on market growth, likely based on the problem of inclusion that plagues much industry research.  While the past year estimates are fairly similar, future expectations are considerably varied among the more publicize estimates.  Rather than deal with the inconsistencies of such market data, which can include the use of quantum dots in medical and laser applications, our focus is on the use of quantum dots in consumer electronics.

​The primary current application for quantum dots in the CE space is for QD Enhancing Film, a sheet consisting of top and bottom polyethylene films (PET) that act as barriers and a layer of a polymer that contains a suspension of quantum dots.  The sheet is placed between the backlight and the liquid crystal system in an LCD display as an add-in, or can be molded into a replacement for the display’s light guide or diffuser, a translucent sheet that helps to evenly spread the white light from the backlight across the entire display.   While LEDs are used in most LCD display backlights the white light they produce contains a broad spectrum of colors. 
In displays without quantum dots, after the light passes through the liquid crystal, it reaches a color filter that is composed of red, green, and blue dots made of phosphors, materials that glow (luminescence) when exposed to radiant energy.  These phosphors eliminate much of the light energy contained in the white light in order to narrow the color to one of the red, green, or blue components that make up a display pixel.  For example, while a red phosphor dot emits red light, it blocks all other colors and therefore reduces the amount of light energy reaching the user.  Phosphors also have other limitations in that they are not very precise in terms of the light they let through, and with the broad spectrum of light coming from the LED backlight, a red phosphor might also allow some reddish orange or bluish red light to pass.
By inserting the quantum dot film before the light reaches the color filter, the dots can take the white light and ‘convert’ much of the broad color components, passing on a more pure red, green and blue to the phosphors, which then would be blocking less color energy.  As an alternative, instead of a white LED backlight, a blue LED backlight can be used, with red and green quantum dots converting 2/3 of the light to those colors and letting the blue light pass through to the color filter, again ‘purifying’ the colors before they reach the color filter, with both alternatives producing more vibrant colors without the high cost of more ‘precise’ phosphors. 
As we covered the use of quantum dots in Samsung Display’s new QD/OLED TV display system, we look a bit further out on the quantum dot timeline, with a focus on Micro-LEDs.  Not to be confused with Mini-LEDs, which are small but relatively easily produced LEDs, Micro-LEDs are generally under 100µm (0.004”) and are produced using typical MOCVD processes, however due to their size, transferring the requisite number of Micro-LEDs from a production wafer to a display substrate can be a monumental task, given that a 4K display would require 8.29m such Micro-LEDs of each of three colors, for a total of 24.88m Micro-LEDs, each having to be removed from the production wafer and placed on the display substrate to precisely match the driving circuitry.  As we have discussed previously, the transfer times involved, even using specially designed mass transfer tools, is quite long and therefore expensive.
That said there is a bigger problem for Micro-LEDs.  As each of the three color LEDs (RGB) are produced on their own wafers, there tends to be an interim step where each color’s LED die are removed from the production wafer and placed on a temporary substrate in order to be arranged in RGB sequence.  Once all three color Micro-LEDs have been placed on the temporary substrate in the correct order, they are again moved in sequence to the display substrate, further adding to TAC time and cost.  In order to eliminate this interim step, quantum dots can be used to simplify the transfer process.  In such a case only one color Micro-LED is needed, typically blue, which are moved directly from the production wafer to the display substrate, covering the entire display.  Red and green quantum dots are then applied to 2/3 of the blue Micro-LEDs, converting their light from blue to green and red, and eliminating the need for three separate Micro-LED production wafers.
This concept also helps to solve another problem facing Micro-LEDs, which is one of consistency.  When LEDs are produced there are both variations in light output and color, which tend to get worse as the size of the LED gets smaller. The potential solution is to test each Micro-LED, measuring luminance and color, and creating a ‘wafer map’ that tells the transfer tool to skip those that don’t meet minimum specifications, but even with this time consuming testing and mapping step, there are still significant variations across the wafer that would affect the final product.  Quantum dots can be ‘pumped’ by a relatively broad light spectrum, meaning that the variations in blue color that might occur during Micro-LED production, will not affect the ability of the red and green quantum dots to shift the blue to those primaries, avoiding the necessity of creating a ‘quality’ map, only looking for those Micro-LEDs that don’t work at all, creating a higher quality Micro-LED display than might be created using red, green, and blue Micro-LEDs and no QDs. 
By using quantum dots to color convert a single color Micro-LED display, a number of processes can be eliminated or simplified, reducing production time and cost.  While such a display system would not be purely RGB Micro-LED, using quantum dots would make the production of small pitch Micro-LED displays a far more feasible task in a mass production environment, and while there are still many production problems that need to be solved before Micro-LED displays can be mass produced at prices that are within the budget of most consumers, the use of QDs would eliminate a number of potentially large bottlenecks and push forward the Micro-LED timeline.  More tomorrow.

We have mentioned the use of bi-stable inks developed by E-ink (8069.TT) and popularized by E-readers and ESLs (Electronic Store labels), but BMW (BMW.GR) has come up with a use that goes far beyond those applications.  E-ink technology is based on a film that contains micro-capsules filled with a clear fluid and positively charged white particles and negatively charged black particles.  When an electric charge is applied to one side of the micro-capsule it attracts the positively charged white particles to the top of the capsule, making it appear white, and when an inverse charge is applied, it attracts the black particles to the top, making the capsule appear black, with each capsule able to be divided in half, allowing both black and white to form gray.  What makes this system most popular is the fact that once the voltage is applied, the particles remain in their last position without any power being applied, unlike most displays that need to be refreshed 60 or more times each second.  This makes such films an easy choice for battery operated devices that must last a long time before replacement.
BMW has applied this technology to the surface of a BMW iX, naming it the ‘Flow’, and while there was no mention of whether the concept would ever be applied to mass production vehicles, the demo vehicle shown at CES takes the concept to a practical level.  As shown in the video below, the finish of the vehicle is easily changed from black to white at the whim of the user, along, in this case, with the color of the rims, and while the concept was likely intended to attract considerable attention (which it seems to have done), the BMW project leader indicated that not only does it look good, but has some practical applications.  In a cold environment, changing the finish to black would allow the car to absorb as much of the sun’s rays as possible, reducing the load on the vehicles heating system, and inversely when in a bright environment, turning the shell white, would allow it to reflect much of the sun’s heat.
That said, at any time in a given parking lot there are a number of folks who can’t quite remember where they parked their car and have to wander aimlessly until they are close enough to use their key fob to flash the lights or honk the horn.  None of this would be necessary if you have the BMW iX Flow, which you can set to constantly change from black to white, making it highly visible in almost any environment, and all of this is done with almost no power consumption.  While the development of such a vehicle took years, eventually the same multi-color inks that are used in newer E-ink displays could be applied in the same way, allowing you to change the color of your car according to your mood, or even have the car do it for you by reading your facial expression (we are getting carried away here).  Again this is a concept car and may never see the light of day other than at exhibitions and demonstrations, but we have to admit its an application we had not thought of.  The link below shows the BMW demo.

youtu.be/DGFBU7CYvM0
​

Over the last few years quantum dots have become a significant part of display infrastructure and have been one of two factors that have led to the ability of LCD technology to extend its dominance over newer display modes.  The addition of quantum dots to LCD displays, particularly in the TV space, has increased specifications for such displays, at a relatively low cost both from a product and manufacturing standpoint, and has given display brands a new product tier and substantial product differentiation. 
That said, we are in unparalleled times in the display industry, with a number of new display technologies surfacing that are all vying for a dominant place in the display world.  Mini-LED based displays, essentially a typical LCD display with an LED backlight on steroids, is the ‘other’ of the two technologies that has extended the life of LCD technology by improving this older technology’s contrast (The difference between pure black and pure white), a weakness that makes LCD technology less comparable to newer self-emitting technologies such as OLED.  
OLED has gone from a novelty in 2013 to the mainstay of small panel displays and while still a niche product in the TV space (<5% of total TV unit volume), it is a key technology in the lucrative premium display market.  As a self-emissive display mode, RGB OLED allows for ultimate control over each sub-pixel, generating almost infinite contrast, but large panel OLED displays are subject to two basic limitations, the first being an inability to manufacture TV size RGB OLED displays, and second, limitations on the brightness of the display.  OLED TVs use a combination of yellow/green and blue OLED emitters to create a white light that is made up of red, green, and blue light components, but in order to create the three colors necessary for an RGB display that white light must pass through a color filter, essentially a sheet of red, green, and blue dots.  Each dot will filter out two colors (for example a ‘blue’ dot will filter out red and green, while a red dot will filter out blue and green) which reduces the amount of light that is generated by the device.
OLED materials continue to improve and improvements in light extraction materials can also help to increase WOLED light output, but Samsung Display (pvt), the leader in small panel OLED, has been developing another approach that combines the properties of self-emitting OLED materials and those of quantum dots.  Yesterday Sony (SNE) announced that it would be releasing a 4K TV (Bravia XR A95K) later this year that is based on a QD/OLED panel produced by SDC, however while this is a major step for SDC, missing from the show was an announcement from parent Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) that it would also be releasing a QD/OLED TV.  While we expect that this omission was more of a tactical issue than a technology related one, Samsung’s approval and purchase of such panels are an absolute necessity for SDC, who must make the decision as to whether to expand QD/OLED production, which is currently capped at a maximum of 30,000 sheets/month. 
Without this additional potential demand SDC has little or no large panel TV display product, leaving Samsung Electronics to buy all of its TV panels from competitors and leaving SDC only able to compete in the small panel market, but Samsung Electronics must also consider where a QD/OLED TV might fit into their TV line , which already consists of pure LCD TVs at the low end, quantum dot enhanced LCD TVs at the mid-tier, quantum dot LCD+Mini-LED TVs at the top tier, and Micro-LED TVs at the ultra-high premium level. 
Rumors that Samsung is considering buying WOLED panels from LG Display (LPL) add another potential TV price class, so QD/OLED must find a place in what is a rather complex TV line-up at Samsung, and the marketing of each category is carefully considered by Samsung, who is the leader in the TV set space.  We expect Samsung Electronics to offer one or both OLED types, potentially using WOLED as a low-end OLED offering and QD/OLED as a high end OLED offering, but much will depend on SDC’s ability to keep the cost of QD/OLED panels in a range that allows Samsung these options, and with true mass production just beginning, it is likely that the focus at SDC is resolving potential yield issues rather than refining production costs.  Given the number of moving parts in such product decisions, while we were a bit surprised that Samsung did not make a specific announcement, we expect it will happen this year.
 

Since Quantum Dots are a current topic of conversations (see above), we thought it helpful to update readers on the current state of the QD space relative to display.  Quantum Dots themselves are nano-structures that are typically composed of a core material and a shell.  What makes quantum dots interesting is they are the shape-shifters of the display space, well maybe not shape-shifter but color shifter.  By stimulating a quantum dot, either optically or electrically, the quantum dot will emit light.  In the case of QDs, the actual size of the QD will determine the color that it emits, with the largest QDs emitting red and the smallest blue, so by controlling the size of the dots during production, they can be tailored to emit specific colors. 
A secondary characteristic of quantum dots is that they produce ‘precise’ colors, essentially colors that produce light at narrow wavelengths, under 50nm wide in most cases, as opposed to OLED materials that produce similar peaks but broader bases, giving display designers the ability to tailor the color balance to very tight specifications.

A 3rd characteristic of quantum dots is that when they are used to ‘color convert’ there is minimal loss of energy compared to color filters, which reduce light output by as much as 66%.  This means that when a quantum dot is ‘pumped’ (stimulated to emit light) by a light source, much of that light is converted rather than blocked, resulting in a brighter and more color saturated display.  This is theory behind Samsung Display’s QD/OLED display panels mentioned above.  In these large panels, a layer or multiple layers of OLED material, typically blue or blue and green, are spread across a substrate while red and green quantum dots are patterned above the OLED material.  In the case where the OLED material emits blue light, every third space in the quantum dot patterning is left open to allow blue light from the OLED emitter to pass through, while the red and green quantum dots convert the blue light to red and green.
There will be many variants on the structure of such panels but the theory is that the blue OLED light ‘pumps’ the quantum dots to emit their respective colors, creating a large panel RGB display without the deposition limitations that keep RGB OLED from being used for OLED TVs.  In the case of SDC’s QD/OLED display, the quantum dots are patterned using an ink jet printer, with the dots being dissolved in a solvent along with wetting agents.  This allows the entire substrate to be patterned without the metal masks used in small panel RGB OLED production and is extremely efficient in the use of materials., while able to create dots at intervals down to 2um, meaning there are few patterning limitations as to display resolution.
All in, the result should be a brighter overall panel that retains the high contrast of a self-emissive display and the color purity that quantum dots provide, however while this sounds relatively easy, the engineering behind such a device is complex.  The TFT that drive the OLED material to emit light is different than what is typically used for LTPS or LTPO backplanes used for LCD and OLED displays, so the design of the backplane  for QD/OLED was a daunting task, and while ink jet printing has been used to encapsulate OLED materials, patterning at such tight tolerances required a substantial improvement in IJP tools and  considerable research in QD ink composition, which will continue as the materials and process move into mass production. 
That said, after the initial release of Sony’s QD/OLED TV and the potential Samsung set, the question will be whether the public will see enough of a difference in the display to rationalize what will likely be a higher cost relative to WOLED.  Initial reports from some trusted sources who have seen physical demos are quite favorable, however all the positive reviews in the world are secondary to what the buyer sees when walking into  a store, and the answer to those questions will likely not be answered until later this year.  There will likely be strong pre-order sentiment from sagacious technocrats, but rank and file buyers are needed to sell enough units to justify the production expansion necessary to establish the technology as a potential display modality and to support the continuation of the R&D necessary to reduce costs and make material and manufacturing improvements.  More on QDs tomorrow.

​Shiftall (pvt), a subsidiary of Panasonic (6752.JP), has moved (in theory) from an announced VR product to an almost released product, with the announcement that it will be showing its MegaNeX VR headset at CES.  The device is the second one we know of to be using Micro-OLED displays, in this case 1.3” displays produced by Kopin (KOPN).  The headset is among the lightest at ~250 gm (0.55 lbs) and carries 6DoF tracking.  The device is to sell for under $900, although no delivery date or retail pricing is available.  Along with the device are a few accessories, aside from the controllers, and while we usually spend little time on accessories, these are a bit unusual.
\The first is Haritorax, a $275 option, a simpler version of what is used for motion capture in filmmaking.  The ‘straps’ (for lack of a better word) are wrapped around various points on the body and transfer physical motion to a VR avatar through a number of popular VR headsets via Steam VR (pvt).  HaritoraX can run for ~10 hours on a self-contained battery, but to understand this accessory it is essential to watch at least a bit of the promo video, showing it at work.
https://youtu.be/zVg0NRJ8IDA
If that doesn’t weird you out enough, Shiftall has another accessory that goes even further, Mutalk.  Do your kids play video games using headphones with a microphone, and can you hear them yelling and screaming all the way at the other end of your house or apartment?  For us the answer is yes, and Mutalk is here to solve that problem.  The device, which looks like something from The Silence of the Lambs is a mask with a Bluetooth microphone that according to the company, “ensures your voice is broadcast into the Metaverse – not into your living space” and includes a detachable strap to muffle your speaking voice.  If you need even more realism you can strap on PebbleFeel, a device about the size of a remote control that sits on your back and allows the user to ‘embed temperature information into your Metaverse’, allowing the user to ‘feel’ the temperature in their (or other’s) Metaverse, with a range between 48⁰ and 107⁰.
All together, the well-dressed VR enthusiast could be wearing the VR headset, Hartorax, PebbleFeel, and Mutalk, along with the two controllers that are strapped to the user’s wrist (to prevent them from flying off and destroying articles of furniture or other users) to fully enjoy the immersive Metaverse experience.  There are few things we can think of that might scare young children than their Mom or Dad wearing such a get-up and gesticulating wildly while running in place in the den, especially if it ends up with a bout of motion sickness, broken furniture, or possible cuts and contusions.  Welcome to the Metaverse.
 

​Rather than go through innumerable press releases extolling the virtues of new products that have been pre-announced before the CES 2022 show, we thought it better to wait until the reality that many of the items announced are not currently available (demos, prototypes, etc.) or look a bit less exciting when OLED details are given or the product is actually viewed.  One such announcement from Taiwan based panel producer Innolux (3481.TT), who is ushering back in the world of 3D displays, although this time without the glasses that were an integral part of the 3D viewing experience and a great hindrance to its development in the past.  These “N3D” (Naked 3D) panels are shown in the promotional video as providing images that are inches or feet from the screen and in some cases hovering overhead, a difficult achievement without special optics or projectors.
https://youtu.be/0BgZvgoE8XI
But the biggest problem for many of the new items released (actually ‘announced’ would be more accurate) is both the lack of delivery dates and more so, the lack of price.  CES is a place where companies can show the glitz and glamor of their products without much of the recourse that follows and actual product release and consumer feedback, so we take most announcements with a grain of salt and wait until there is an actual product to look at before making any judgements as to the validity of the product or the technology.  We expect key buzzwords at the show this year to be “Metaverse”, “Mini-LED”, “VR”, “NFT”,and more quietly “Supply Chain”.  Based on Google (GOOG) search requests on a global basis for the period between December 26, 2021 and January 1, 2022, “Metaverse” had a search interest of 100 (the maximum) as did “VR”, with “NFT” down slightly to 94, while “Supply Chain” has dwindled to 49 and “Mini-LED” to 0, although the latter peaked at 100 as recently as late November 2021.

​While it is a bit early to start making predictions for VR in 2022, we expect at least a few more announcements concerning VR or AR headsets, and a number of demos or product releases at CES this week.  We believe there are at least 13 VR headsets that have already been announced but have yet to be released, so there is already ample ground for product releases, if brands are actually able to produce what they have previously stated.  While all but one of the VR headsets released in 2021 were based on small pitch LCD displays, we expect this year’s crop to be more varied, with at least two Micro-OLED based, and two Micro-LED based headsets, with the remainder being LCD, although we expect quantum dots to be added to at least one display.
We expect this year’[s crop of VR headsets to see a distinct improvement in resolution, likely double the resolution seen on average in those released last year, and while we don’t believe such resolutions (and other metrics) are enough to put VR into the category of a mass production CE product, it does go toward at least improving some of the issues that make VR difficult for a substantial part of the global population.  Prices, at least what we know so far, don’t seem to be changing, with the low end expected to be around $500 and the high end over $2,000, but we expect that the focus on the Metaverse will spur a bunch of new headsets that will try to capture a less ‘gamey’ and ‘social’ crowd, that would likely be a bit more cost conscious, although much of the market will still be dominated by well-known brands in 2022.  We do note that as resolution increases, the need for higher streaming data rates also increases, which should push headset developers to look toward 5G going forward.  No specific plans that we have heard yet, but much will depend on the availability of 5G chipsets designed for VR applications. 
One difference that we see this year is more uniformity on VR platforms.  In 2021, there were a number of headsets that were based on proprietary platforms, making them more dependent on relationships the platform had with developers and limiting content to a degree.  In 2022 it seems that most of the headsets will be based on the Steam VR (pvt) platform, opening smaller brands to the Steam VR catalog and giving consumers an easy and familiar way to buy or stream content, which goes toward making VR easier for rank and file Metaverse participants, who have less desire to work with headsets and more desire to buy stuff.  Removing any obstacles to ease-of-use will go toward opening VR up to a larger audience, but it is still our view that a real “Metaverse” is still years off, and the few Metaverse sites associated with companies at CES 2022 indicate that the level of content sophistication is still quite low.  While we might have focused more on some of the hardware limitations that surround VR, content is what will generate interest (other than money) and we are still unsure as to whether the gating factor is software or hardware (or both).   As with all technology there has to be an ecosystem to support it, and suppliers are just beginning to figure out what might be needed to make such an endeavor work.

We don’t usually mention automobiles in our CE notes, but we do mention teardowns when they are available, particularly if they include a BOM.  In the case below, a Japanese professor at Nagoya University and his team were curious about the world’s most popular EV, the Wuling Hongguang MINIEV, which returned to the number one position, beating the Tesla () Model Y in sales during October.  Given the extent of the Japanese automotive industry, the professor and his team (the Power Electronics Research Laboratory) decided to dismantle the MINI EV (aka “Froggy”), which is produced by SAIC (600104.CH)-GM (GM)-Wuling (305.HK), a JV between the three based in China, and sells for between $4,100 and $6,200.  The professor was curious as to how the company could produce such a popular car for such a small amount of money.
After dismantling the vehicle the team found that a number of systems that are common to pure electric vehicles were not present.  In most EV’s there is a brake energy recovery system that converts the thermal energy produced by braking into electrical energy and stored in the battery to extend the vehicles cruising range.  As this was not present in the MINIEV, its range is limited to a bit over 100 miles, limiting it to local use, however it also reduced the cost by ~$380.  The water cooling system usually found in EVs was also eliminated in favor of an air cooling system and the Inverter, which converts DC power from the battery into AC for the motor, has a lifetime of ~8 years or ~75,000 miles as opposed to a more typical 20 years and ~125,000 miles.
While the elimination of such sub-systems goes toward reducing costs, the real gains are made by using off-the-shelf parts, which do not require special development costs.  Many of the parts used meet household appliance standards, not more reliable automotive standards, so while the cost is low, the vehicle is more likely to fail.  In order to compensate for the higher potential for maintenance problems, the company has put the more delicate components in modules, which make their replacement considerably easier, albeit a bit more expensive.
In terms of the overall cost of the vehicle, the team found that the cost of the battery system alone accounted for just under half of the cost of price of the vehicle, and even the Chinese government could not rationalize the losses being generated by some of the vehicle’s suppliers, given its robust sales.  Inquiries into those supplying motors found that the ~$3.01m in sales had generated only $415,000 in losses, which were such a small part of the company’s business that they made little difference.  The government asked that supplier make sure investors were informed of the potential risks, while the suppliers extolled continuing increases in sales, ‘ushering in a booming development opportunity.’
However, when it came down to the actual BOM, from the manufacturer itself, the total profit for the vehicle came to less than 89 yuan, which is the equivalent of $13.96 currently, a rather thin margin, which was similar to an estimate made by a person said to be close to the manufacturer, who pegged the profit at 100 yuan, or $15.69.  The vehicle, considered the least expensive pure EV in China and the most popular, is quite popular among the under 30 set and has become a bit of a fad, with many owners modifying the car to stand out graphically.  Comments from owners indicating that there are few chances to buy a car for the price of 3 iPhones, seems to indicate that the demand, regardless of the potential limitations, will remain, but the real question is how long can the company continue to produce such vehicles at such a small margin.
 

While China gets much attention in the CE space, being the largest market for many CE products, and Japan represents ~2.5% share of the TV market, trends that appear in the largest markets should be mimicked in smaller markets.  Japan’s TV shipment data has indicated that overall TV shipments have been declining, particularly in 2H of 2021, similar to most regions, while OLED TV shipments continue to grow, despite the overall slowdown.  With OLED TV shipment tracking in 2018 beginning in April ’18, OLED TV share was only 3.8% of total flat panel shipments, rising to 6.8% in 2019, to 8.3% in 2020, and 11.8% in 2021 (excluding December).  While there will likely be negative growth in Japan’s TV market in 2021, OLED TV units and share have been growing.