Speaking of large TV sets, in anticipation of Prime Day (7/8 to 7/11) we checked to see if other retailers, in this case Amazon (AMZN) had begun any unusual promotions.  While the site quotes discounts for many of these sets, most are at the same price they were when we checked last, about 10 days ago.  The discounts being shown on the site are the current price against the original list price, which is typically the highest price the set ever sees.  Much of the LG 70”+ inventory is relatively old, with only 2 models from 2024 and the remainder older, while much but not all of the Samsung inventory is 2025.  We note that while price and price/in2 are important metrics we use to value products, we note that the feature sets for each of these models are different and should be evaluated in conjunction with other metrics.

​China’s 6/18 shopping holiday started as a celebration of the founding of JD.com (JD).  The company, founded on June 18, 1998 decided to celebrate another year in business with discounts on what was then primarily consumer electronics products.  However, by 2010 the online retailer had expanded to appliances and groceries and the discounting grew as the company rebranded the celebration into a shopping festival that began to challenge Alibaba’s (BABA) 11/11 shopping festival.  Other retailers joined around 2015, and livestreaming became the go-to promotional venue, with same-day shipping adding to consumer enthusiasm for the holiday.
As with most highly promoted events, 6/18 seems to have peaked, in terms of growth, during the COVID pandemic and has seen slower growth over the last few years.  JD.com is no longer reporting GMV and the holiday seems to get extended each year in order to make sure that the ‘total’ for holiday sales is higher each year.  This year the holiday ran from 5/21 to 6/20 while last year from 5/25 to 6/20.  While actual numbers are getting harder to come by, on an average daily spend basis, this year’s holiday sales are lower than last year according to early accounts, even though it has been reported that the total GMV was higher than last year due to the additional days.
From the retailer side, it seems that this year’s biggest selling categories were home appliances and CE products generally, along with beauty aids, fashion, sports, and pet supplies, but the overall trend this year seems to be a more cautious attitude toward spending, a shift from impulse buying to spending on more necessary items.  Some expressed ‘subsidy fatigue’, as the current government sponsored program designed to stimulate the Chinese retail economy is now over 15 month old, and other’s complained of a ‘panel lottery’ concerning the quality of the displays for low priced TV models, but TVs were still among the best sellers in the CE space.
That said, a bit more granularity reveals that while 65” and 75” are still the most popular sizes, growth slowed in that popular size segment this year, and 85”+ sizes were weaker than expected due to their relatively high prices.  Premium brands  ($850+) like Samsung (005930.KS), LG (066570.KS), and Sony (SNE) saw weaker sales while local Chinese brands like Hisense (600060.CH), TCL (000100.CH), Xiaomi (1810.HK), and Skyworth (751.HK), particularly in the value segment (<$450) saw stronger sales.  Mini-LED sets sold well while OLED was weak, again because of the disparity in pricing, as value was the key to TV set sales this year.
All in, it seems Chinese consumers are a bit more cautious this year, despite May Chinese retail sales being a bit encouraging, and brands seem willing to try to move inventory at  discounted prices, so the holiday seems destined to continue but at a slower growth pace than in previous years.  We expect Chinese online retailers will do whatever is necessary to make whatever numbers that become available look as good as possible, but eventually the novelty of the shopping holiday has to wear off.  Some said last year saw negative GMV growth, while others disagree, but we expect that it will get harder to make the case for 6/18 being something other than a highly promoted shopping event like our Black Friday or Prime Day events.

​LG Display (LPL) opened up a line of speculation when it announced a ~$925m (US) investment in advanced OLED technology.  Grist for almost any speculation, a recent theory has been that LG Display is considering using a photolithographic process to produce IT OLED displays, potentially the process sponsored by Japan Display (6740.JP) known as eLEAP.  We note that we expect every major panel producer is doing at least basic research on using photolithography to produce small to medium sized displays but LG Display has been in the unusual position of not having the financial wherewithal to commit to the Gen 8.6 OLED fabs that are already being built by Samsung Display (pvt) and BOE (200725.CH) for the purpose of producing IT OLED displays.  This has been thought to be a stumbling block for the company in terms of their ability to compete for IT OLED display business, particularly from Apple (AAPL).
The potential multi-billion dollar commitment that is necessary to build such a fab is a serious one and until recently was one that LG Display could not have made, so the question then becomes does LG Display now commit to taking on debt or diluting its equity in order to join the competition, even though it will likely be 12 to 18 months behind its competition, or does it look for alternative avenues in which to compete?  We expect the latter for the following reasons:

• After paying down debt, using the proceeds from the sale of the company’s Guangzhou LCD fab, and the financial pressure that debt put the company under, we expect the board is looking for alternatives to adding back debt. 
• As opposed to SDC and BOE, LG Display has been developing and producing some of the OLED structures that are essential to Apple’s longer-term OLED display development for quite some time, and is producing them on its Gen 6 OLED production line.  We expect that eventually SDC and BOE will be able to produce IT OLED products more efficiently on their new Gen 8.6 lines, when they are in mass production, but not only is there a long learning curve with this new OLED format, but there is no guarantee that there will be enough volume to run the lines at a profitable utilization rate or yield.
• We would expect that LG Display is looking for alternatives to such a large and risky commitment, and their  recent $925m spending commitment to ‘next generation’ OLED would likely lead to something other than a new large scale commitment to  existing mask oriented  Gen 8.6technology.  Photolithographic OLED deposition is also risky, as it is a process that has yet to be put into mass production, but it also bypasses some of the limitations that continue to make current OLED production expensive and less competitive to LCD technology.

              Sidebar – In current large panel WOLED production a number of the materials in the OLED stack are deposited using ‘non-patterned’ techniques like VTE (Vacuum Thermal Evaporation), spin-coating, or ink-jet printing, as the definition of sub-pixel color comes from a color filter rather than the specific OLED material color.  In the OLED photolithographic process, many materials are deposited in the same manner, with the lithographic steps removing material to form specific sub-pixels of each color.  It’s not that the equipment would be identical, but that it would be similar for these early process steps, and that means equipment companies don’t have to develop new tools from scratch, keeping costs lower.

• There are a number of developed OLED photolithographic systems vying for recognition in the display space.  Japan Display has eLEAP, Visionox (002387.CH) has VIP (Visionox Intelligent Pixelization), and Applied Materials (AMAT) has MAX™ OLED, and we expect major display producers are all running their own development programs along the same lines.  We note also that while the processes do have differences, display manufacturers are quite familiar with photolithography as they produce the TFT backplanes for their displays using similar techniques on lines parallel to their OLED or LCD production lines.

Back to the initial speculation…  There has been speculation that LG Display is considering testing the JDI eLEAP process on one of its less used WOLED production lines to see how it scales.  We expect this could certainly be the case, but we would expect that they have or will do the same with MAX OLED and VIP, if they have not to date.  The risk is low if they are using an existing low utilization open-mask line and should one of the process prove out, building out a new photolithographic line with much of the equipment already in place would give them a way to stay competitive.  If none of the processes work out, they can still continue to produce IT OLED displays on their Gen 6 lines. 
We will save the positives and negatives of OLED photolithographic production for a later note.
All in, from the standpoint of both risk and the financial health of LG Display, it would make sense to try all three photolithographic processes and build out at least a pilot line if one or more prove out.  While there is no guarantee that any of these systems will scale to mass production levels and meet the rigid standards that Apple imposes on its display producers, if one does, it would turn LG Display’s difficulties into what could turn out to be an advantage in the long term in terms of cost and in terms of time to production.  It is certainly not a perfect solution to the competitive threat posed by SDC and BOE, but it does leave LG Display with alternatives and that is a major plus. 

While VR devices languish, AR glasses seem to have become the focus of those looking to capitalize on a “VR Lite” world that can provide additional visual functionality without the massive headgear that keeps VR out of the mainstream.  That said, even lower on the VR/AR scale are the latest category of ‘glasses’, AI glasses.  AI glasses are just what they seem to be, relatively standard glasses with the ability to connect to an AI system that can be used for a number of functions.  They tend to be inexpensive relative to AR and VR devices, with functionality varying with each new device.
The category is ruled by Meta’s (FB) Ray-Ban glasses that were released in October 2023.  They have sold over 2 million units since and are the standard against which competitors are marked or mark themselves.  Yet, when CE brands see unit volumes in the millions it is hard to resist sticking a bunch of engineers into a facility somewhere and seeing what they come up with in a few months.  While Meta basks in the glory of being the best by far in a ‘new’ category, the competition is beginning to come from other substantial players, with China’s Xiaomi (1810.HK) the latest to release its own branded AI glasses.  We note that while AI glasses are a standalone category today, we expect the category to merge with AR glasses at some point in the near future as consumers will see AI glasses as the ‘low-end’ of the visual headset spectrum, with AR being the mid-tier and VR being the upper tier.
Given the success of the Meta Ray-Ban’s Xiaomi did not stray far from both the Ray-Ban look and functionality, and we already get the feel that while AI glasses are reasonably inexpensive, it’s going to be a knock-down, drag-out battle on price once the basics are established.  Just like the smartphone world, where a new feature or application can sustain a line for a year or two,  AI glasses and eventually AR glasses will be one and the same, although at a lower price point, and for AI glasses that become available under $300 (currently) and eventually under $200, it is easy to see how volumes can become attractive to CE brands that deal in millions of units regularly.

As can be seen in the images above, there is very little physical difference between the Xiaomi Ai glasses and the Meta Ray-bans, and when it gets down to components that similarity remains.  Here is a comparison of the feature sets of both.  These are for the basic models of each.

So, what can these glasses do, considering they are only a bit more expensive than the average pair of glasses at a discount retailer (avg. ~$184).?

• Translation - They have the ability to translate conversation in real time, with the number of languages available dependent on the model or brand.  The Xiaomi glasses include 10 languages including Chinese.
• Text recognition – AIs have made text recognition a much easier task then having to run documents through a physical OCR or digital documents through software to break down image-based text into actual editable text.  AI systems can do this easily using the camera that is built-in.
• Object Recognition – Object recognition requires either a massive database and a matching system, or a model that has been trained on large amounts of image and video data.  Again, using the camera, one can have the AI examine an object that the user is looking at and classify or describe it.  Taking it further, in theory, the user can then ask the AI about the object, such as where it might be sold and in what colors.
• Voice commands and Assistants – Multiple microphones allow voice commands to be used to initiate processes or systems, such as video recording.  This allows the user to initiate the command without having a free hand.
• QR Codes – The glasses can scan mobile QR codes for payments , avoiding having to take out your phone to scan QRs.
• Transcription – The glasses are able to record meetings, conferences, and  conversations and create transcripts and translations.
• Video and Image Capture – Using the embedded camera, the user can capture images and video (30 fps), take video calls, or livestream.
• Audio – The glasses have a 5 microphone array that can be used for voice calls and built-in open-ear speakers in the frames so no earbuds are necessary.
• Integration – This is where things can get a bit more difficult as applications need to be able to interact with the OS and, potentially, applications on a smartphone.  , so things like livestreaming might be limited to only those live streaming applications that have APIs or other necessary interfaces to work with the glass’s hardware.  This is where proprietary systems can cause AI glasses users to become frustrated and be unable to use all of the features.  However, as glasses become more popular the interface issue should fade as both applications and hardware modules become more standardized.

One question that comes to mind at this relatively early product stage is whether the direction will be whether brands will take the route of maintaining a price range in the $200- $400 range and compete by adding features or will the direction be to keep hardware costs low and keep reducing the price to attract more users?  We expect the former.

​The EU has been on Apple’s (AAPL) case concerning its rules for developers on the App Store since early 2019 when Spotify (SPOT) filed a formal complaint with the commission, followed by a formal investigation commencing 15 months later.  The heart of the Spotify complaint was the fact that it was forced to charge higher prices for its upper tier subscriptions through the Apple App Store because of the 30% commission charged to developers.  It could steer users to its website for in-app purchases, but that alternative was made difficult by Apple rules.  The EU fined Apple €1.8 billion in March of last year for what it called abusive practices concerning music streamers, primarily in response to the anti-steering rules Apple had in place for years.
The DMA (Digital Markets Act), finalized last year, provides legislation in the EU that protects against these kinds of practices, and Apple is continuing to modify its App Store rules in order to comply with DMA and not incur additional fines.  Most recently they made a number of changes relating to the App Store that they hope will convince the EU Commission that they are not creating unfair trading conditions, reducing competition, or ultimately limiting consumer choices and causing higher prices.
Here are the key changes Apple has made to its EU APP Store Policies:
Store Service Fee – This replaces the flat commission model that Apple had previously used if developers used an external payment link within their apps.
              Tier 1 – 5% - This tier comes with App Review, Content moderation, Privacy labels, Trust & Safety features, and basic app delivery.  It does not include auto App updates, ratings & reviews, Downloads across devices, natural language search, Apple Store featuring & marketing, app tabs, and advanced app insights & performance metrics, essentially cutting away many of the App Store’s promotional tools.
              Tier 2 – 13% - Includes all App Store features including those omitted in Tier 1.  Small businesses (earning less than $1m) and those apps with auto-renew can lower the fee to 10%.  Tier 2 is the default, but developers can opt to Tier 1 once per quarter for each app on each storefront.
Initial Acquisition Fee – This 2% fee applies to sales of digital products made by new users who are ‘acquired’ through the App Store and then make an external purchase.  This 2% fee continues (on monthly subscriptions or items) for the first 6 months of the new user’s timeline.  Small business developers can waive this fee.
Core Technology Commission – 5% - This is a new commission that replaces the previous and highly controversial CTF that was charged when a user made an external purchase through an App Store application.  As of now, the previous CTF (Core Technology Fee) is still in effect but is being phased out (Target 1/1/2026) and the CTC phased in.  The old CTF was a €0.50 fee charged to the developer for each install after the first install over 1 million each year.  The big complaints about this fee came from developers who provided their apps for free, having no sales offset to the fee for popular apps.
Other than fees, Apple has made a few other changes to assuage the forces in the EU, such as allowing developers to promote their applications and goods on external websites (other than their own) and alternative marketplaces, and has reduced the number of times the “You are leaving the App Store…” warning appears when users click on an external payment link in an app.  Apple still has not implemented a choice of payment options for individual apps (either App Store in-app or ‘alternative’ payment options) but seems to be heading in that direction, albeit less than voluntarily.
The developer community seems mixed about Apple’s new EU system, some continue to criticize Apple for maintaining a structure that is anti-competitive while others see the new tiered structure more flexible, but the bottom-line comes from the EU commission who must determine whether the new rules meet DMA standards.  If not Apple could face another round of massive fines for even small violations.  

Earlier this week Japan Display (6740,JP) converted the MOU it had signed with its largest shareholder Ichigo Trust (2337.JP) into an official agreement, much of which will be executed next month.  The deal, which is comprised of:

• New warrant issuance (3.852 billion underlying shares for ¥95.6 billion or $662.5m US)
• The transfer of certain IP from JDI to Ichigo (LCD & OLED)
• The sales of the JDI Mobara fab to Ichigo and partial leaseback
• The repayment of ¥65b in loans from Ichigo from the Mobara sale proceeds.
• Ichigo’s surrender of previous warrants at zero value

Assuming that the warrants are exercised (¥25 exercise price – Current Price ¥20), Ichigo’s ownership will increase from 78.2% to 91.6%.  The exercise period extends from 7/15/25 to 11/30/28.  The proceeds from the warrant sales will be allocated (approximately):

• 45% for working capital through 2028
• 25% for Display, Sensor & Advanced Packaging Capex
• 10% for R&D and technology commercialization
• 5% to build out JDI IP
• 5% for strategic partnerships
• 5% for digital improvements (ERP, etc)

There is little that can be said at this point as JDI has made numerous attempts to ‘fix’ the problems that have been besetting the company for the last 10 years.  Way back in 2016 it was rumored that Apple (AAPL) was considering converting at least some of the LCD iPhone displays that were supplied to it by JDI and others to OLED.  While that did not happen until late in 2017, Japan Display management took the head-in-the-sand approach, assuming OLED was just a fad, which ultimately proved incorrect.  Since then JDI has made a number of attempts to find a new technology path but has been unable to find anything that might become an offset to its currently almost non-existent display business.  The company does have some potential photolithographic OLED material deposition IP but has been unable to find a partner to scale the process.
Current management has certainly taken steps to reduce costs and tail off money-losing businesses, but building traction for new processes or products is both time-consuming and expensive, and given the turmoil that is the everyday meat and potatoes of the CE space, this most recent financing might be enough to carry the company through the next 2 ½ years.  That said, it is just a band-aid unless JDI can get one of its new ideas, concepts, processes, or products to stick, a task even the big boys and girls are having trouble with currently.

On June 16, Trump siblings Eric and Don Jr. announced Trump Mobile (pvt) and its flagship phone the T1.  The date was a commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the 2016 announcement of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential bid.  The mobile service, an MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) that operates on the network infrastructure of existing major carriers, also promised roadside assistance and telehealth services along with carriage.  The Trump Mobile website initially claimed that the T1 would be “built in the US” and a follow-up release by the Trump Organization indicated that the phone was “proudly designed and built in the United States”, while other early promotional material declared that the phone was “proudly made right here in the USA”, and the original product description stated, “The T1 Phone isn’t just powerful—it’s brought to life right here in the USA. With American hands behind every device, we bring care, precision, and trusted quality to every detail”, along with a website banner that said, “Made in USA”.
On or around June 22, the Trump Mobile website was subject to a number of language changes.  The “Made in USA” banner was removed, “built in the U.S.” was changed to “brought to life right here in the USA”, “proudly designed and built in the United States” was changed to “Proudly American”, and “proudly made right here in the USA” was changed to “American Proud Design”.  While the “Made in the USA” banner was removed and not replaced the statement “designed with American values in mind” appeared.  The specifications for the T1 itself also seemed to have changed, as the OLED display, originally noted to be 6.78”, is now 6.25” and the 12GB of RAM originally stated in the phone specs is no longer on the site.  No processor was named in the original promo, which is unusual, and no processor has been named in the updated promo. 
One other significant change that was made was the date of availability, which was originally stated to be in September and now states “later this year”, but as we originally noted, this was not a Trump Organization product, just one that was licensed by the TO, and with the intense scrutiny and iffy detail, there is considerable speculation that the phone might be undergoing a slight ‘design change’ to better fit with the updated and likely more accurate advertising.  The Trump organization has made it clear that it is in no way responsible for the development and manufacturing of the network or the device, but when you pull apart the partnerships, operating companies, Delaware corporations and LLCs behind the product, the responsible party is as expected.  Frozen Steaks anyone?

While we track memory prices, we don’t often comment on spot prices unless they are doing something unusual and for the last few weeks DRAM prices have been heating up, with this week seeing the greatest w/w gain of the year in most DRAM categories.  This has pushed DDR4 prices above DDR5 prices, typically something that does not often happen in the daily course of events.  DDR4 supply is tight but much of the panic is coming from the lack of a definitive trade agreement details with China that might settle potential semiconductor and memory trade issues.  The steep part of the increase has been in a relatively short timeframe but should it extend it will add to the cost pressure CE companies are feeling before they start worrying about tariff issues…

There are dozens of cases in the US courts decrying the fact that AI companies have used copyrighted material to train LLMs under the ‘Fair Use’ doctrine.  Authors, artists, musicians, and content creators look at this type of use, much of which is done without copyright permission, as stealing the material that they created and have the legal right to capitalize on, should they so desire.  Given that there is considerable case law on fair use, one might expect rulings to be relatively simple, but that is certainly not the case as the use cases here are ones that are relatively new to the courts and do not follow many of the case formats that have governed fair use in other instances.
A recent ruling by a US California District judge in favor of Anthropic AI (pvt), the developer of the ‘Claude’ LLM models, could change the way in which models are trained, leaning more to the ‘fair use’ side of Section 107 of the US Copyright Act.  In order to understand the basics of the decision, here are a few facts about Section 107:

• The section discusses the limited use of copyrighted material without explicit permission under certain circumstances, trying to balance the exclusive rights of copyright owners with the public interest in free expression, creativity, and information availability. 
• These are not clear cut rules with easily followed formulas and as they are fact specific, they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 
• On a more general basis there are some instances where copyrighted material ‘May’ be considered ‘fair use’, meaning no permission needs to be granted, but each instance is subjective.  They are:
  • Criticism
  • Comment
  • News reporting
  • Teaching/Scholarship
  • Research
  • Parody

However when it comes to the four more specific court related requirements, the primary criteria (In our view) is…the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is commercial or non-profit.  Here purpose and character can mean does the use transform the work by adding new meaning, messaging or expression or does it use the work for a different purpose than the original.  An example might be the critique of a painting, which would be a different use of the artwork than the artist intended. We note that while non-commercial uses are typically favored over commercial use cases, commercial use is not categorically infringing.  There is also the ‘public benefit’ consideration, along with a bit of hunting for ‘good faith’, meaning is the user willing to attribute the works even if they are fair use and don’t require it?.
The nature of the work is also a big factor. Is it factual or creative, with factual works having less fair use protection (Facts are not copyrightable) as is whether the work is published or unpublished, as original authors are typically granted the right to be the first publisher of their works.  The amount of the copyrighted work to be used is also a factor and while there are no specific rules, less use gets you more fair use leeway, especially relative to the size of the work, and less use of the key points or heart of the copyrighted material also gets more fair use latitude.
The last major factor is the tricky one.  What is the effect of the use on the value of the copyrighted work or the value of the market overall?  Will the use of the work be a substitute for the work itself and therefore reduce the value to the author?  This includes the current and future markets and is a tacit test to see how directly this potential use competes with the demand for the original (copyrighted) version.  The more ‘transformative’ the use, the less competitive it is considered.
While we point to a number of key factors, this is a very nuanced topic and has been argued in the courts ad infinitum, so regardless of the ruling we show below, every lawyer worth his or her salt will argue that whatever precedent that has been set, does not apply in this case, and the facts must be evaluated specifically on their own merits, leaving definitive rulings to future generations.
Here is our summary of the ruling, as short and sweet as possible:
The case is a dispute between several authors and Anthropic AI, the developer of the Claude LLM model family.  The authors believe that Anthropic used their works to train their AI models without the permission necessary as they are copyrighted works.  The authors allege that Anthropic pirated some of the works, purchased others and scanned the pages into a ‘research library’.  The models were trained on various subsets of the pirated works and the library copies.
The judge ruled in Anthropic’s favor citing that the use of the works to train the LLMs was a ‘transformative’ event and qualified the use as a ‘fair use’.  The judge pointed to the fact that none of the works were ever provided to users and that statistically mapping relationships between text fragments is fundamentally different from copying.  He cited the fact that humans read and learn from copyrighted material, allowing them to create new works, just as an LLM might ‘read’ the text relationships and create something new.  The judge also allowed Anthropic’s book digitization, citing that it was a digital replacement of books already purchased or licensed, not the creation of new works or additional copies.
That said, the judge did not allow Anthropic to use pirated copies for its digital library as the use of the works for a ‘central library’ was not a fair use, while the training was.  Anthropic made the case that pirating the works was ‘reasonably necessary’ for training the LLMs but was unable or unwilling to show which specific works were used in  training as opposed to those put in the library.  The judge did not buy that argument.
All in, while the headlines might rack the ruling up as a victory for the AI developers, it will more than likely be appealed and continue through the courts for years.  With many other cases pending, there will be no shortage of rulings for both sides until there is enough specific case law that the courts don’t have to cite fair use cases from the days before there were AIs.  The question remains however, what is to stop anyone from using copyrighted material to train an LLM when the US is in a race to develop AI models faster than our rivals?  In this case there are no indigenous tribes that have to be ‘relocated’ to mine the land or drill the oil, just a few writers who won’t be able to cash in on the AI boom as easily as they thought.  How is that going to hurt anybody? 
It won’t unless you happen to be the author who spent years writing with the hope that his/her works might mean something to somebody.  It won’t unless you composed a unique melody that could become a song we remember significant life events by, and it won’t unless you happen to be the painter who trained for years to be able to tint the sky in a way never done before.  All it takes is “Hey Gemini, create a song just like that one that I just played and post it to my Insta account” and the minutes , hours, days, and weeks that went into the creation of that original song you just heard is now a set of millions of relationships.  Those relationships can be used to create a song just a bit different from the one you just heard, in a few seconds.  Some folks say that’s a plus, we don’t.

Panel sales this year have been an up and down situation. January and April have been down roughly 12% each m/m, while March and May have been up by roughly the same amounts (February was up slightly).  On a cumulative basis against the same period last year, panel sales are down 1.7% and looking at only those that produce large panels, sales are down 2.4% y/y.  This comes after a relatively strong May, where sales were up 11.8% m/m but still down 10.7% y/y.  2024 saw most of the strength in panel sales in 2Q and 3Q so this year the industry will face those more difficult comparisons, although the tariff situation has made predictions as to monthly performance almost impossible.  That said, we expect June panel sales to be weaker as we expect TV panel prices to decline along with brand demand, and that weakness to carry into August unless some unusual US tariff situation develops when the most recent postponement expires in early July.  We estimate that TV panel sales currently make up 50% of total panel sales value, so a downward shift in TV panel pricing and or demand has a significant effect on overall industry panel sales value.

The  table below shows the m/m change in panel sales for each supplier for May, the y/y change, and the cumulative y/y change that shows where we stand this year at this point in time, compared to last year.  Those highlighted in red are primarily large panel producers.