The rivalry between South Korean panel producers (Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL)) and Chinese panel producers has been ongoing for a number of years as Chinese producers have pushed South Korean producers out of the large panel LCD business.  As it became obvious that Chinese producers had the advantage of significant government construction and operating subsidies, South Korean producers began shifting from LCD display production to OLED production, a relatively new technology at the time.  While Chinese large panel producers eventually won the battle for LCD display domination, South Korean producers went on to establish OLED as a higher quality technology, particularly for small panel displays.  Not to be outdone, Chinese panel producers have been building OLED capacity to challenge South Korean dominance in the OLED space, and while there are a multitude of CE brands that use OLED displays, the top of that list is Apple (AAPL).
Apple’s transition from LCD to OLED starting with the iPhone X, released om November 3, 2017, is expected to continue for the next few years as they migrate much of their product line to OLED.  Samsung Display and LG Display have been the primary small panel OLED suppliers to Apple but are continuingly being challenged by China’s largest panel producer BOE (200725.CH), who has made some inroad with Apple, supplying replacement displays for earlier iPhones and as a 3rd supplier for some later models.  While BOE has had its own issues with Apple, they continue to challenge SDC and LGD, along with a number of smaller Chinese OLED producers, and SDC has gone to the US ITC alleging patent infringement, with BOE, and other Chinese OLED producers (Chinastar (pvt), Tianma (000050.CH), and Visionox (002387.CH)) responding by challenging the validity of those patents in US Patent Court.
As the ITC investigation continues (target date 3/17/25) the patent challenges also continue, and the US Patent Review Board has ruled on one of the 4 patents that Samsung claims were infringed upon.  The ‘683’ patent, filed by Samsung Display on 11/13/17 in the US and 3/6/12 in Korea makes 15 claims concerning OLED pixel structure, particularly Samsung’s ‘diamond’ pixel structure shown on the left side of  Figure 1.  The PTAB has decided that 10 of the 15 claims made in the original patent are not valid, while leaving 5 intact.  Samsung will have the opportunity to appeal that decision. 
Limiting the broad scope of a patent is not an unusual outcome in patent review cases, but narrowing the patent will also narrow the ITC’s investigation scope, making SDC’s case a bit harder, and could open one of the other patents included in the investigation to further scrutiny as it is essentially a continuation of the ‘683’ patent mentioned above.
All in, the validity of the ‘shape’ characteristics of the pixels (polygon, Octagon, or non-quadrilateral) as specified in the ‘683’ patent, remain in effect, which is a key point in terms of the infringement, but spacing between pixels, size, and arrangement, the other ‘683’ claims, are invalidated, reducing the points that SDC can cite in the ITC investigation.  We expect SDC will appeal the PTAB decision, but this ruling and any potential appeal will likely push out the final ITC decision and the battle for OLED supremacy will continue in both the consumer space and the courts for another year.  That’s how lawyers put their kids through college.

[Note: The US Patent Office considers a patent unpatentable when the difference between claimed subject matter and prior art would have been obvious at the time of invention by a person having ordinary skill in the art to which subject matter pertains, where ‘ordinary skill’ means a degree in electrical engineering, material science, physics, or similar disciplines, along with 2 years of professional experience working with display design, including OLED displays or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, or experience.]

​We are always a bit skeptical when it comes to CE industry estimates, as inclusions and exclusions can have an enormous effect on totals.  When such estimates come from industry associations, we also have to take into consideration the potential positive bias members who supply the  information might bring, balanced against the richness of such industry data.  The Consumer Technology Association produces a US technology industry revenue estimate based on their analysis of over 200 hardware products and services, and while we don’t have inclusionary data, we present it as incremental information for 2024 and 2025.
The forecast for 2025, based on the accuracy of the 2024 final estimate, calls for a 3.2% increase in US Consumer Technology spending in 2025, comprised of 2.6% hardware growth and 4.6% software & services growth after 2024’s 2.5% growth (1.1% hardware and 5.2% software & services).  The optimism for the hardware segment, which comprised 66.2% of total spending in 2024, is based on the replacement cycle for hardware purchased during the COVID pandemic, the ending of support for Windows™ 10, and, of course, AI, as well as new wearable form factors.  While software & services are expected to see less growth in 2025 than in the previous year, the main driver is also AI, under the heading of AIaaS, or AI as a service.

​That’s the good news, however the CTA also commissioned a study that attempts to quantify the impact of incoming President Trump’s proposed tariffs, using two scenarios, one with a 10% across the board tariff on all goods imported into the US and a 70% tariff on all Chinese imports, and the second based on a 20% general import tariff and a 100% Chinese product tariff.  While we expect that whatever tariffs are actually put in place will be far more complicated than these scenarios, at least these ‘best’ (?) and ‘worst’ scenarios set the bar as to the impact they will have on various US CE product categories.
The study predicts that the greatest decline in demand, in either scenario, would be felt in the laptop and tablet segment, along with monitors and gaming consoles, where the best-case scenario generates a 40%+ decline in demand.  Other product categories, again in the best-case scenario, see declines from 26% (smartphones) to 14% (desktop PCs), while the worst-case declines run between 22% (laptops and tablets) to 7% higher than the best-case scenario for Li-Ion batteries.  We note that these are very difficult calculations to make, and we expect have included a relatively small, if any, contribution from the negative psychology that such tariffs might foist on US CE consumers, which we expect will further dampen demand as near-term inventory pricing gives way to tariffed inventory as the year progresses 
That said, we expect brands to enter the CE space in 2025 extremely cautiously, as planning production against the potential variability of US CE demand is an unenviable task.  More likely, that hesitancy will lead to a weak 1Q, with the hope for a better 2H, as country-by-country tariff deals are worked on by the new administration.  We expect any resolution on trade with major partners will sound good when they are announced but will have to be carefully monitored as the year progresses to avoid a large ‘catch-up’ 4th quarter or missed targets, so we give credit to anyone willing to take a stab at tariff impact, knowing that the scenario could change in a minute and likely will.

Lenovo (992.HK) did it.  They have been showing a rollable laptop at various shows for two years, teasing reviewers with a ‘demo’ or ‘prototype’ and an unanswered question about when it will become a real product.  At this year’s CES show Lenovo has actually taken those demos and made them into a real product that you can buy, or will be able to sometime in 1Q.  When we say ‘rollable’ here, we mean a laptop with a 14” display (2000x1600 resolution) that can extend itself upward to become a 16.7” laptop in only a few seconds.
This slight-of-hand is accomplished by pulling the bottom of the flexible OLED screen, made by Samsung Display, inside the device when in 14” mode and having motors slide the screen upward as the internal portion is pulled into view when needed.  Just to get this mechanism to work smoothly, as those who have seen it in action say it does, is a feat of engineering and we give kudos to both the design and engineering staff at Lenovo, but there is also a practical side to this device.
First, there are lots of things to go wrong.  Foldable display develop creases at the fold and while the display is not rolled up inside the chassis when not in use, it sits at an angle to the 14” screen, a point where a crease is likely to form.  With motors, rollers, and mechanicals to expand the display come new components and new issues when used in real life, and while Lenovo says the laptop is rated for 30,000 openings and closings and 20,000 up and down screen movements (11x per day for 5 years), real-world usage is usually more rigorous than lab testing that is typically done in a controlled environment. Oh, and we forgot to mention that this all comes with a price, actually $3,500, quite a bit more than the specs for this 14” laptop would normally cost, but you do get to show your friends how watching the screen expand and listening to the sound of the motors calms that nervous tic that has developed since you spent this month’s rent on your new laptop.
A number of reviews we have seen are praising this device because it provides a 50% increase in screen space.  This comes from the idea that when the device is in expanded mode you can see 50% more of the lines of code you are working on or 50% more of the document you are editing.  However, when calculating screen area one finds that the ‘closed’ screen has 89 in2 of area and when ‘open’ has 108.1 in2 of area, or 21.5% more screen space.  It seems that Lenovo has taken some liberties with how it describes the display, not surprising given the need to find a reason for consumers to pay up for this first-of-its-kind device.  But again, we applaud Lenovo for having the guts to take the plunge into the world of rollable laptops (Note that LG’s (066570.KS) rollable TV is no longer being produced), but as a practical device you are paying quite a bit more than 21% for the extra 21% of screen space.
Here's a video of the device being opened and closed.  The important stuff is in the first 1:25.

​https://youtu.be/f2T-Yu9KEAk

​ Smartphones are incredible feats of technology, squeezing innumerable parts into a rectangle typically under 20 in2 and ~ 1/3 of an inch thick.  Most smartphone owners rarely see what is on the inside of their phones, making purchase decisions (hopefully) on matching specifications to their use profile.  But inside those rectangles, packed in like sardines, are literally hundreds of ICs and other components, along with a battery, display, and assorted cameras.  

There are those that relish the thought of purchasing smartphones and then taking them apart, piece by piece, in order to quantify structure and cost.  Such a group is TechInsights, who are known for their detailed teardowns of various CE devices.  They have been kind enough to afford us a detailed look at one of their smartphone teardowns, which we summarize below.
The phone being disassembled here is the Sony (SNE) Xperia 1V, a device released in July of 2023.   Sony is not a major smartphone brand but is known for the high quality of their phones, so the example below should be a guide as to what to look for in a high-end smartphone.  We note that when the Xperia 1V was released, it sold for $1,399.  The phone weighs 188 grams, runs on Android, and has a 6.48” OLED display, along with four cameras, and runs on a Qualcomm (QCOM) Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 processor.
While the greatest share of the BOM is the broad category of integrated circuits (45.7%), the camera subsystem captures 23.7%, due to the fact that it covers 4 cameras and associated electronics, lenses, etc.  The display subsystem, which is a single 6.48” OLED display and a touchscreen, along with a polarizer and cover glass (total of 70 components), is next at 7.5%, followed by non-electronic parts (frame, etc.) at 7.2%.  More relevant to the investment community would be the breakdown of the total component types and the IC category on a branded basis.  As can be seen in the table below, the IC category carries the largest cost share by a large margin, putting significant weight on the brand share shown in the table that follows.  

​Qualcomm supplies not only the phone’s Application and Baseband Processor (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2), but also supplies the audio codec, a number of power management chips, saw filters, RF tuners, and a number of multi-function front-end modules.   We note that Sony’s share is higher than usual, as it uses its own branded components wherever posible, with SK Hynix supplying both DRAM and NAND.  While the details of the lower level components are less important and carry relatively small type or brand share, it is interesting to note that the phone contains 7 PCB/flex boards which contain, in total, 1,708 components, all packed into something that fits into your pocket.  While we knock smartphone brands for releasing new phones each year that are almost duplicates of what came before, it is a great feat of engineering that smartphones work at all, given the number of components that could fail.  Credit where due.

​There are many ways to produce OLED displays. Small OLED displays can be produced using a red, green, and blue stripe to produce a pixel that can reproduce millions of colors. Some create small OLED displays by patterning RGB OLED material dots in a variety of configurations, each with its own positives and negatives, but large OLED displays, such as those for TVs or monitors are another story.  LG Display stacks a number of OLED materials on top of each other across the entire TV and uses a color filter to create colored sub-pixels.  Samsung Display does something similar, but uses different OLED materials and then uses quantum dots to convert the light into colors.
While the techniques for creating small and large OLED displays are different, they both have to compete with other display technologies, particularly LCD and its more recent kin, Mini-LED TV.  OLED TVs tend to have richer colors and higher contrast than LCD TVs but they tend to be less bright than LCD TVs, and are more expensive to produce, so large panel OLED producers are always looking for ways to improve brightness.  There are micro-lenses that can be used to pull more light from the display and dozens of other techniques that will work toward improving brightness, but the most important focus for improving large panel OLED display brightness are the emitting materials themselves.
OLED material producers are constantly working to improve characteristics, and while new OLED materials with better characteristics are always being developed, brightness improvements are often a tradeoff against material lifetime or color accuracy and cost, yet the competitive nature of the display business forces OLED display producers to keep making improvements to counter the competition.  One way of doing such is to use more OLED material.  LG Display’s original WOLED displays were formed of three stacks of OLED materials in layers.  Each stack was composed of blue and yellow/green emitters.  That combination produced white light, which was then passed through a color filter of red, green, and blue phosphors, each removing the opposing colors.  The prolem with this method is that it is subtractive and results is considerably less light reaching the viewer.
Over time a red emitter was added to the stacks to improve the quality of the white light, but in order to maintain brightness after the color filter, a blank space is left on the color filter, allowing a white sub-pixel to be added to each pixel.  While this improved the overall brightness, it also washed out some of the colors.  LG Display has now decided to add a fourth stack to its upcoming displays by separating some of the emittercolors in the stacks into there own stacks.  This concept adds additional emitter material, which adds to the light outrput (brightness) and allows for more control over the ‘tuning’ of each layer.
Samsung Display (pvt) has a different method for producing large panel OLED displays.  They coat the entire panel with OLED emitter materials, in the same way LGD does, but the combination of materials produces blue light rather than white light.  The blue light is passed to red and green quantum dots, which shift the blue light to red and green, and  a space allow the blue light to pass through unchanged.  While there is some loss from the qualntum dot conversion, they convert rather than filter, so a white pixel is not needed and the colors tend to be truer.
That said, LCD displays are based on backlights and OLED displays are self-generating, so regardless of the method used, OLED displays tend to be less bright, and driving them harder with a higher current just reduces their lifetime, so Samsung Display is doing the same thing as LG Display and adding an additional stack of blue  light generating OLED material to its QD/OLED displays, starting with its smaller OLED monitors.  Consumers will benefit from the extra stacks from both producers, as will the OLED material suppliers, although the uptake will not be overnight, however the bigger question will be how the additional stack will affect the price of the displays.  OLED emitter materials are expensive so we expect producers will have to eat the cost at the onset, but if the concept of adding stacks makes enough difference that consumers are more comfortable with OLED, than it will be worth the cost.  We expect the answer will take at least a year to surface, and while the idea of adding stacks might seem nuanced to the average user, if it is able to increase the brightness of an OLED display by 20% or 25%, it will make a big difference in the battle between OLED and LCD over time.

​TV brands are notorius for aggressive marketing, and that sometimes leads to marketing that is on the edge of being deceptive.  Last year Samsung added a number of models to its OLED line that used a technology that was significantly different from Samsung’s own QD-OLED display technology.  These sets were, and still are, based on WOLED technology, and purchased from LG Display (LPL), who has been using that technology for years, while those based on Samsung’s QD/OLED technology function completely differently.  Samsung has said little about the fact that the company markets both technologies as OLED line, but does not specify which technologies are used in each of the company’s three OLED lines and various OLED TV sizes.  In fact, certain models and sizes can have different technologies based on the location where purchased, without the customer knowing which technology they are purchasing., and while Samsung says it guarentees the quality of all of its OLED TVs, if one is looking to purchase a QD/OLED Samsung TV, they could wind up with something else.
Of course, Samsung is certainly not the only one who plays these marketing games and with the announcements of new 2025 TV lines at CES, it seems that LG (066570.KS) has declided that product names do not necessarily mean what they seem.  LG has been marketing its high-end LCD TVs as ‘QNED TVs’ for a number of years, which implies that they are quantum dot enhanced (the Q in QNED), yet it seems that this years QNED TV lines are not quantum dot enhanced but rather use software to enhance color reproduction and contain no quantum dots.  Consumers, who assume that QNED still means quantum dot enhanced, will find no quantum dot films, bars, polarizers, or color converters in their new LG LCD TVs, despite the fact that they continue to be sold under the QNED name.
It seems that in November of last year Hansol (014680.KS), a Korean specialty chemical producer and supplier of quantum dots for displays to both South Korean display producers, filed a complaint with the South Korean FTC alleging that a number of TCL’s (000100.CH) LCD TV sets, which are labeled as ‘QD’ models, do not contain the elements necessary for quantum dots.  While TCL denies the claim, they are being investigated under false advertising statutes. 
All in, every time a TV brand tries to slip something past consumers, it erodes both individual brand trust and trust in the CE space overall, giving consumers another reason to hesitate when making purchases.  With a number of TV technologies available to consumers currently, decision-making has become far more difficult than just a few years ago, and brands that keep things simple for consumers will likely maintain a steady user base that will return in each cycle.  When we spend time in retail stores listening to consumers speak with salespersons about TV buying choices, it becomes evident that most are buying based on price, and are taking the word of the salesperson or something they read on the internet in terms of the technology, so even the hint that they might have made a bad decision once the set is home can cause the consumer to abandon that brand forever.  It is hard to imagine that a salesperson could not make a case for or against quantum dots, WOLED, QD-OLED, or Mini-LED when trying to close a sale, so it would seem that there is little point in trying to hide the facts from consumers, but that’s our opinion, not that of brand executives or marketing teams…

​Recently we noted that Samsung (005930.KS) was one of the only major CE manufacturer that does not offer Dolby (DLB) Vision™ across its TV line, instead developing its own HDR 10+ high-definition video format in conjunction with 20th Century Fox (DID) and Warner (WBD).   These systems increase image brightness and contrast relative to SDR (Standard Definition), along with increasing the color palette, and adjust image parameters on a frame-by-frame basis, rather than fixing a group of settings for the entire content duration, as is the case in SDR.  What makes the Samsung and Dolby systems different is that Dolby Vision has to be licensed by the content creator (typically a one-time fee) and by the device manufacturer (typically a per unit fee), while the Samsung system is open source and therefore free to use.
It seems that Samsung is taking this concept further and has just announced that it will be including Eclipsa™, its open-source spatial audio system, across its entire TV line in 2025.  This system is in direct competition to Dolby’s Atmos™ spatial audio system and similar ones from DTS (DTSI), Sony (SNE) and others, including Apple (AAPL), although Apple’s Spatial Audio is primarily used in its own products as it is closely tied to the OS. 
These audio formats are object oriented, meaning that they isolate each sound, whether it is a voice, music, thunder, gunshot, etc. and allow it to be placed in a three-dimensional space, as opposed to the left/right two-dimensional space used in stereo recordings.  By adding the dimensions of ‘height’ and depth to the audio, a more realistic portrayal of the sounds can be created.  In a typical stereo (2 channel) playback system the sounds are placed horizontally between a left and a right speaker at the time of mixing, or can be mixed in a  ‘surround’ format, typically adding a set of rear left and right channels.  Systems such as Atmos or Eclipsa take that information and make each sound into an object by sampling the audio 48,000 times each second and breaking the audio into objects rather than forcing them into two or four channels.  The systems can then place each object anywhere left/right, front/back, and above/below, creating a more realistic 3-dimensional playback that more closely matches the screen.
These systems typically use speaker systems that include the usual left and right front (and a center speaker as most dialogue originates from center stage), a pair (L & R) of rear speakers, and a height speaker, but they also have to be able to be used on generic stereo systems, such as the TVs own two speakers or headphones. In order to do this, these systems use a number of tricks to fool the human brain.  Delaying (Milliseconds) some objects in one speaker can make it seem like it is further ‘back’ on one side than the other and reducing the volume of an object can have a similar effect, while filtering (changing the tone) of an object can seem to move its location, but the full effect of object-oriented audio is found on the type of speaker set-up described above.
Samsung’s Eclipsa system is an outgrowth of IAMF (Immersive Audio Model & Formats), an audio format it has been developing with Google (GOOG) since 2020 to improve on the ability of other object-oriented audio systems, particularly when used on 2 speaker systems.  At least that is the stated objective, but the fact that Dolby (and others) charge a license fee to use their systems seems to be a big factor, with Samsung unwilling to pay to license such systems when it believes it can produce its own. 
However, while 3D audio market statistics are few and far between, we believe Dolby has had the dominant share and the only way a new competitor can make any headway in said market would be with an open source, and therefore free offering, which is the route Samsung has taken.  Of course Samsung will offer the system across its own TV set lines but will have to convince other CE brands that it can do at least what Atmos can do, without the fees.  Industry organizations, particularly the Alliance for Open Media, have been advocating for royalty free codecs for almost 10 years but has focused primarily on video codecs so Samsung and Google, both AOM Steering Committee members, must get the ball rolling. 
Should their members get behind the Samsung/Google IAMF framework, it would stand as a direct competitor to Dolby Atmos, and since the Alliance for Open Media has participated in the development of IAMF, there is such a possibility.  That said, we note that it is ultimately up to content creators to decide what format they  wish to use, so it will take more than sponsorship from the AOM steering committee members or rank-and file supporters before real adoption is afforded to the new system, but the good news is that it is free, making it available to hardware and software manufacturers, who will not have to pay to build encoders and for CE brands to build decoders into their products, as Samsung is doing.  Its hard to battle an incumbent as entrenched as Dolby, but ‘free’ usually helps.

On January 2, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce added 28 US companies to its ‘Dual-use Export Control List’, prohibiting the export of said ‘dual-use’ items to any on the list.  Dual-use items are any goods, technologies, or software that has both civilian and military applications.  Examples would be navigation and avionics systems, electronics and communications equipment, biotechnology and biomedical equipment, and certain tools and materials.  In December we noted that China had restricted exports of additional rare earths and materials that are used in the manufacturing of advanced semiconductors and weaponry, while also having broad applications in consumer products.  We expect that the Chinese government will continue to add to this restricted list as the US does to its trade limitations with China.  As of yesterday, all exporting of Chinese product to these companies is halted and any Chinese company that considers exporting to these US companies as essential has to submit an application to the Ministry of Commerce.  If China holds to the same mindset as the US, it will be denied.
Here’s the list:

• General Dynamics (GD)
  • General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems
  • General Dynamics Information Technology
  • General Dynamics Mission Systems:
• L3 Harris Technologies (LHX)
• Intelligent Epitaxy Technology (IntelliEPI): 4971.TT
• Clear Align LLC: (pvt)
• Boeing Defense, Space & Security: (BA)
• Lockheed Martin Corporation: LMT
  • Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control
  • Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
  • Lockheed Martin Missile System Integration Lab
  • Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories
  • Lockheed Martin Ventures
• Raytheon Missiles & Defense – (RTN)
  • Raytheon/Lockheed Martin Javelan Joint Venture
  • Raytheon Missile Systems
• Iron Mountain: IRM
• Inter-Coastal Electronics: pvt
• System Studies & Simulation: pvt
• Applied Technologies Group: pvt
• Axient: pvt
• Anduril Industries: pvt
• Maritime Tactical Systems: pvt
• Pacific Rim Defense: pvt
• AEVEX Aerospace: pvt
• LKD Aerospace: pvt
• Summit Technologies Inc.: pvt

With only three of the 11 months of Chinese mobile phone shipments in 2024 being above the monthly 5-year averages, one might think that the Chinese mobile phone market continued the long-term decline it has been in since 2017.  While 2024 Chinese mobile phone shipments will not wind up anywhere near the heady levels seen eight or ten years ago, we expect 2024 to be the second year of improvement after hitting a low in 2022 (see Figure 1).  Based on our expectation for mobile phone shipments in China for December, we estimate that 2024 will see shipments increase by 6.9% y/y.  This is a bit better than shipment growth in 2023, which was 6.5%, but comes after the extremely weak 2022, which saw y/y Chinese mobile phone shipments down 22.6% y/y.  

In isolation (see Figure 2), the last three years of Chinese mobile phone shipments present a picture of growth, however the shipment level for 2024, the better of the three years shown in Figure 2, are only slightly above the level of shipments in 2020 and are still below all other years, other than the previous two.  Given the strength of 4Q of 2023, much of the y/y growth in 2024 came in late 2Q and 3Q.  That said, while we would expect 2025 to again see some y/y growth in Chinese mobile phone shipments, we would expect overall y/y growth to be lower than in the two previous years as the comparisons become more difficult throughout the year.  However there are two factors that could influence shipments in 2025.
First, AI.  The Chinese market has had a number of AI enabled models available to consumers, with the Vivo (pvt) X100, released in November of 2023, the first we can find that had advanced generative AI features, and also the first to use the Mediatek (2454.TT) Dimensity 9300 Ai chipset.  By 3rd quarter of 2024 ~22% of all Chinese smartphone shipments were AI capable and Chinese brands held a roughly 92% share of the 28m Ai capable smartphones that were shipped in that quarter in China (Samsung (005930.KS)) had a 4% share along with ‘others’, also at 4%).  This data points to Chinese smartphone brands looking to use AI in 2025 as a way to push the upgrade cycle on the mainland, in what has been a relatively weak retail environment. 
While the success of this strategy is far from certain, Chinese consumer seem to be more enthusiastic about AI, we believe, in part, because China itself has been quite aggressive in AI development, and started from a point similar to others, rather than having to play catch-up.  While trade restrictions on semiconductor development could slow that growth a bit, we expect a continued push from Chinese smartphone brands to offer AI features as a selling point this year.
Second, the Chinese government has recently included smartphones in its ‘New for Old’ consumer subsidy program, which helped to spur sales for a number of CE products in 4Q ’24.  Details of the smartphone subsidies are not yet available, but other products covered under the program typically garner a subsidy between 10% and 20% of the retail price, which we believe is substantial enough to move the needle, at least at the onset.
With these two potential factors as influencers early in the year, and an early Chinese New Year (1/29), we expect 1Q ’25 could see continued y/y growth, but we expect that it will lessen as the year progresses, as comparisons get more difficult and the enthusiasm behind the subsidies wears thin.  All in we expect Chinese smartphone shipments to stay in the low 300-million-unit range for the year, with much of the y/y growth in the 1st half, and, barring any unforeseen trade issues, we see similar results for 2026 at this time. 
As Chinese smartphone brands have a small share of the US market, potentially onerous trade restrictions on Chinese phones would have little effect on US consumers, with Xiaomi (1810.HK) having the largest share, albeit a small one (~1.2%).  However the implications for non-Chinese brands, particularly US smartphone brands in China could face a bit of additional nationalistic pride from Chinese consumers, who tend to opt for Chinese brands during periods of trade tension with the US.  2025 presents a fair number of variables that can have an influence on the Chinese mobile phone market, but we believe the longer-term picture is one where it become similar to other more mature markets, finding a shipment level that remains fairly constant over the years.