​While 5G gets the headlines, we have previously noted that LTE (4G) continues to grow, hitting almost 6.2b subscribers by the end of 1Q, showing 10.4% y/y growth, and adding 584m subscribers in the previous 12 months..  LTE subscriptions now account for 63.8% of all global mobile subscriptions, according to the GSMA, with the Asia-Pacific region accounting for 66.8% of those subscriptions.  According to the same data source, 5G subscriptions grew by 36% in 1Q of this year, reaching 298.4m subscribers globally, or just a bit over 3% of the total mobile market.  That said, that number has changed drastically, as a supplier of the 5G China subscription data has revised their year-end China 5G subscriptions from 401m to 219.5m, an almost 55% reduction, based on receiving ‘new information’ concerning 2020 5G subscriptions on the Mainland, the details of which were not revealed.
As we noted last week, there are discrepancies in the data provided by state sources in China, which call into question whether the data has been ‘colored’ by state objectives, and the subscription data mentioned above fuels that fire, and calls into question other data, such as the number of Chinese base stations deployed or the 5G coverage maps on the Mainland.  While there is no way to drill down through the state data, as the carriers in China that provide the data are also state run, we have to take the numbers at face value, but with the same wariness of self-aggrandizement that we see in the display space.  Words like ‘expect to’ or ‘according to market demand’ don’t always translate exactly or can be missing from press releases, which can lead to assumptions concerning 5G that are a bit more dubious than originally expected.  It is interesting that ‘glorious’ or ‘industry leading’ always seem to be translated correctly however.

There are a number of ways OLED displays can be manufactured.  Small panel OLED displays, such as those used in smartphones and tablets, are produced using a FMM (Fine Metal Mask), a metal sheet with highly defines holes that allow the OLED material to be placed in specific positions on a substrate.  By using 3 colors (Red, Green, and Blue) and moving the mask with each color application, RGB pixels are created, however there are limitations as to the size of such masks as the larger they become the more they flex and bend, causing incorrect pixel placement.
OLED TVs are produced differently however, with two OLED materials coated across the entire substrate.  The light that is created by mixing these two OLED materials is white and then passes through a color filter, essentially a sheet of red, green, and blue phosphor dots that convert the white light to the three colors necessary to create an image, all of which are individually controlled by TFT (Thin-film transistor) circuitry.
 In both cases OLED material is not only coating the substrate but also the mask and the walls of the deposition chamber, and over time the process needs to be stopped, the mask replaced, and the chamber cleaned.  Not only is what is an expensive material wasted, but the downtime raises the cost of the process.  In order to increase the efficiency of OLED material usage, a number of companies have come up with a process that deposits the OLED materials as ‘inks’ from what is essentially a large scale ink-jet printer that places the materials in precise locations on the substrate without a mask.  In theory this process should be close to 100% efficiency as to material usage and has significant control over ink placement, but no without limitations.
As the OLED materials must be dissolved in a solution to allow them to pass through the ink-jets, the solvent and OLED material mixture must not change the characteristics of the resulting OLED ‘dot’, and the time it takes to ‘cure’ (dry) the ink is also a gating factor as to the speed of the process.  Solution based OLED materials are becoming more refined and comparable to OLED deposition materials, but the ink-jet process for RGB OLED is relatively new and still being developed.  JOLED (pvt), a spin-off of Japan Display (6740.JP) seems to be the leader in the printed OLED category, along with JDI itself, and while LG Display (LPL) is able to produce both RGB and WOLED (White OLED), they have opted to use JOLED’s ink-jet printed OLED display panel for their first OLED monitor.
The display itself has a number of characteristics that set it apart from more typical monitors, but the primary difference (aside from price) are the color characteristics.  OLEDs displays in general are prized for their color accuracy and this monitor is both factory calibrated and allows the user to make modifications to settings and store them for later use.  This is essential for those who work I the video industry, particularly colorists, who are responsible for maintaining a consistent set of characteristics throughout an film.  This is an indication as to where LG expects its target market to be for this device as it does not have a number of the characteristics needed for gaming, a fast-growing sub-set of the monitor segment.  It does have higher resolution (4K) than most monitors, although gaming monitors using 4K are becoming more common, but at a 60Hz refresh rate, most gamers will assume the display is not fast enough to prevent image smearing.
The LG monitor is also lacking in brightness, a bit of an issue for OLED displays generally, or at least those using a color filter, as the CF only allows the light for a single color dot to pass through, blocking the other two, which reduces the brightness of the display.  That said, as the target audience, colorists and video production engineers will likely be using the display in a low light setting, it would be less of an issue in those applications.  While the price is $4,000 this is not unusual for monitors that are designed for such applications as we have seen such monitors run over $10,000, we expect the use of the ink-jet process for OLED displays, even in this limited setting and application, should bring down the overall cost of IJP based display OLED displays when compared to typical deposition based OLED displays. That said this will not be a rapid change as IJP OLED is not yet a common process and tends to be used in highly specialized applications that can absorb the higher current cost of what will one day become a lower cost process.
We compare a number of currently available monitors in the table below, although we note that color characteristics for many monitors are not available from manufacturers and typically are far from those of the new LG monitor:

​Over the years there has been much speculation as to the effect of major sporting events on television sales, however what little data that has been presented concerning the connection between TV set sales and large sporting events tends to focus on the pull-in before such events and not the overall set growth over a more extended period.  That said, while this year’s Olympic games in Japan have been nothing if not controversial, a few indications that the event, at least in Japan, is having an influence on local TV sales.   
This year’s Olympics will not allow fans to attend, a number of Japanese retailers have indicated that starting in the 2nd half of May and extending into June, they have seen TV sales increase by 10% to 20% over last year’s volume, with one retailer seeing an over 2x increase.  More interesting than the y/y growth is the point that those indicating increased sales have said the best-selling product during the pre-Olympic sales have been 65” OLED TVs, which tend to be more expensive than LCD TVs.  While the data from the Japan Electronics & Information Technology Industry Association does indicate that the number of OLED TV shipments in May grew by 165.6% to 65,000 units, which was a record, it does not break down OLED TV sizes in the data. 
The data does indicate that the value of OLED TV shipments in May in Japan was ¥17b ($155.4m US), up 163% from the same period last year, indicating an average OLED TV price of $2,405, down just slightly from last year’s May average OLED TV price of $2,428 in today’s dollars, indicating that the popularity of OLED TVs is increasing even though the price (in Japan) has stayed relatively the same.  Historically TV prices in Japan have been higher than those in the US.  While the average OLED TV price has remained the same, we suspect that the average size has increased a bit at the same time, although we do not have data to back up that assumption.

​At the request of parent Samsung Electronics, display affiliate Samsung Display (pvt) has been developing an LTPS backplane designed for mini-LED displays.  Samsung Electronics has been offering a line of 8K and 4K mini-LED TVs and plans to expand their offerings later this year with larger size offerings up to 98”.  The backplane for such large mini-LED TVs has been built on PCB circuit boards but as Samsung Electronics is also developing smaller mini-LED models where the mini-LEDs are packed more closely together, mounting on PCB boards using typical production methodology limits the LED density.  Since the number of mini-LEDs in a 4K display is over 24m, and each is driven by its own circuitry, it becomes necessary to use thin-film technology as mini-LED display sizes get smaller.
SDC is expected to produce these TFT backplanes at it Gen 4 line in Cheonan, Korea, where it had previously produced rigid OLED panels.  That production has been moved to its A2 Gen 6 line, which is more efficient, leaving A1 in question as to usage.  As we noted last week (see our note 07/09/21) Samsung Display has been shifting production as it expands its OLED notebook line and offers production of same to outside customers, and has been toying with the idea of closing A1, which is its oldest OLED fab (2007).  While we expect, if the project (code name “M-Project”) is successful, at least a portion of the A1 capacity will be put into use, and using the existing Gen 4 equipment, the lines would be able to produce the 9.7” mini-LED modules that Samsung Electronics assembles into larger mini-LED backlights. 
Given that micro-LED TFT circuitry is more complex that of standard backlights, Samsung Display will have to change the process for TFT production, including increasing the number of mask steps, but by using SDC Samsung Electronics is better able to tailor the supply of mini-LED modules to its own sales targets and production.  Originally Samsung had been negotiation with Taiwan based AU Optronics (AUOTY), but decided that it could not have the same level of control under an agreement with AUO.  According to Korean press, at the time Samsung Electronics made the request to SDC (the SDC team was formed in April), Samsung Electronics also informed SDC that it was becoming more open to SDC’s QD/OLED project, which had been seen as questionable in Samsung’s eyes earlier.  This likely has encouraged SDC to work toward Samsung’s mini-LED TFT production request as it gives SDC some encouragement that parent Samsung will be a major customer of the new technology.  Funny how that works…

While 5G data is relatively easy to come by in China, likely because China is the 5G leader and wants the world to know, it is much more difficult to derive such data for the rest of the world.  Much comes from the fact that 5G deployments vary considerably from country to country which means there is almost no 5G subscriber data for many areas and little 5G smartphone shipment data from those regions.  That said, 5G smartphone shipments do not always link to subscriber growth as some customers upgrading or replacing a 4G/3G smartphone might move to 5G in anticipation of deployment in their area or country.  Under that premise, we are just beginning to see data that helps to understand why smartphone brands are so interested in selling the idea of 5G to customers, aside from the fact that the smartphone market is saturated smartphone market in many developed regions.
Early data for 2021 suggests that global 5G smartphone shipments represented 39% of total smartphone shipments in 1Q of this year, or ~138m units, and before we go further we note that based on our China shipment data, that 39% is far below the 71% share that 5G represents of China’s total smartphone shipments.  That has been the case since the data became meaningful in 4Q 2019.  Chinese consumers have embraced 5G far more aggressively that global consumers, likely because China has made a concerted effort to deploy large numbers of 5G base stations across the country, or at least in populated areas, and continues to deploy at a rapid rate.  According to the Vice Minister of the Ministry of Industry & Information Technology, China has installed over 910,000 base stations across the country, accounting for ~70% of the global total.
Unfortunately, as we parse the historic data there are some glaring inconsistencies.  If we look at 5G shipment data for 2Q 2020, the global general consensus seems to be ~29m units, or roughly 11% of the total smartphones shipped that quarter.  However data from China says that in the 2nd quarter of 2020 China shipped 49.5m 5G smartphones, or ~164% of the global total, which implies that either the global totals are incorrect, or the Chinese data is inflated.  Almost all of the data on the Chinese smartphone industry comes from CAICT, the China Academy of Information & Communication Technology, which, in its own words, is a scientific research institute directly under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, which is an agency of the State Council, also known as the Central People’s Government, which presides over all of the countries provincial governments., alongside the Chinese Communist Party, and the People’s Liberation Army. 
This makes CAICT a direct organ of the state government and likely has its releases and data carefully scrutinized by various state and party officials.  While the data is at least consistent month to month in most cases, we would expect if there were any discrepancies, they would have been during the 1st half of last year when COVID-19 was at its peak in China, yet it seems that Chinese citizens, at least according to the data, were flocking to stores or on-line to purchase 5G smartphones.  As specifics as to how the Chinese data is collected and what it contains, we might assume that the Chinese data includes every 5G smartphone ‘produced’ in China, whether it was sold on the Mainland or not, but data from other periods is more consistent with global numbers, so we can only accept the data as it stands but take it with a large grain of salt.

Looking at just the global data, which we derive from a number of sources, 5G smartphone shipments, both from a sales standpoint and a share of the smartphone market, have been improving, with a noticeable jump in 4Q of last year when Apple (AAPL) released the iPhone 12 series, all of which were 5G enabled.  While the iPhone 12 series had a large impact on 5G smartphone shipments, it also had an unusual impact on the share of revenue generated from 5G sales, which had been tracking roughly 8% to 13% higher than the shipment share until the iPhone 12 release.  As can be seen in Fig. 3, the share of revenue from 5G sales, as a percentage of total smartphone sales, jumped from 28% in 3Q 2020 to 62% in 4Q and continued to climb in 1Q of this year.

Some of that increase also came from increasing shipment share of 5G smartphone from other vendors, with the 4Q holiday season as a stimulus, but the continued share of revenue expansion into 1Q seems to indicate that Apple was much of the source.  If we look more specifically at the main 5G smartphone brands, it becomes even more obvious that the release of the iPhone 12 series was the impactful event that boosted 5G revenue share across the industry, but when comparing 5G shipment share and revenue share in 1Q ’21 only Apple and Samsung (005930.KS) saw share of revenue higher than share of shipments, and Samsung by only a small amount.  Apple stood out in 1Q as owning 53% of 5G revenue with only a 34% share of shipments.  The data contained in Fig. 4 & Fig. 5 is summarized in the table below.
We would expect 2Q data to be similar, but while Apple could maintain a revenue share over 50% in 2Q, as new models from other brands are released, Apple’s shipment share will decrease until the iPhone 13 is released in October.  We expect the revenue impact to be a bit more muted this year as some Apple users migrated to 5G last year, but we expect the release will still be impactful.  If Apple pulls in the release date a bit to compete with Samsung’s potential updated foldable line, the 3Q boost could be closer to what was seen last year, with the understanding that last year was both an anomaly from the standpoint of the growth limitations that COVID-19 put on 5G growth, and as the first full year of meaningful 5G smartphone shipments and sales.  While this year will still see the impact of COVID-19 on the smartphone market, perhaps more through component shortages than physical limitations, and 5G smartphone offerings have proliferated considerably from last year, 5G smartphone shipments and sales will see more subdued q/q growth and less of an impact from individual brands.

OLED smartphones have been around technically since 2003, although the one OLED smartphone in that year, the Amoi S6, had only a 128 x 128 pixel grayscale OLED display, with Samsung releasing the first full color OLED display in 2004, sporting a massive 1.8” screen on its X120, and LG Electronics following in 2005 with a dual OLED display smartphone, the L5000, and by 2010 there were over 100 OLED smartphone models to choose from.  OLED tablets took a bit longer given the larger screen size, with Samsung’s Tab 7.7 in late 2011, although the use of OLED in tablets took longer to develop.

With estimates of almost 600m OLED smartphones being produced and over 700m small to mid-sized OLED devices total this year, OLED is no longer a ‘new’ technology and has found a significant place in the display world, but RGB OLED, the type that is used in such devices, has not progressed to IT devices, or has it?  We have looked at the laptop market, which would be the logical next-step for OLED displays, and were surprised to find such a large number of OLED laptops.  However we also found large discrepancies in estimates for the growth of that market, which is not all that surprising considering there are many ways it can be sliced, such as notebooks, all-in-ones, laptops, gaming laptops, Chromebooks, and even tablets, all of which can be included or excluded from estimates.  This leads to vast inconsistencies but using even the lowest possible estimate sources, ~2.6m units this year, the space is growing rapidly from almost nothing (~150,000 units) in 2019.
There are some limiting factors, particularly on the supply side as this relatively new segment must compete for capacity against high volume OLED smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches, all of which have well-established customers and justifiable pricing.  Large scale small panel OLED producers, such as Samsung Display (pvt), LG Display (LPL) and BOE (200725.CH), are careful to keep supply closely matched to demand, and  even with smaller Chinese OLED producers nipping at their heels, are careful not to over-expand and crater small panel OLED pricing.  However, if even the least aggressive estimates are calling for rapid expansion in the OLED notebook space, small panel OLED display producers will have to begin to dedicate more RGB OLED production to what are considerably larger notebook panel sizes, and with Apple (AAPL) looking to join the OLED tablet/laptop fray next year after converting its entire smartphone line, it is a topic close to the hearts of all small panel OLED suppliers.
Right now, OLED laptops come in two sizes almost exclusively, ~13.3” and 15.6”.  There are exceptions, but those two sizes are the current norm.  If we compare those two sizes against a typical 6.8” 9:16 smartphone display, the 13.3” notebook will take up 3.9 times the substrate space of the smartphone, while the 15.6” notebook would take up 5.3 times the substrate space, simply meaning that in a static capacity model if the mix between laptop sizes were even, the 2.6m OLED laptop estimate for this year would reduce the number of smartphones produced by over 12m units, creating a 2.1% shortfall in small panel OLED smartphone capacity.  While these numbers do match exactly to absolute fab production rates, they give a better understanding as to how the competition for small panel OLED capacity will fare as the OLED notebook market develops.
The number of OLED based notebooks varies on a daily basis as newer versions of models are added and older models are sold out, and not all models are available in the US, but the table below gives a sampling of some of those that have been announced and (hopefully) are available currently.  We note also that while some models show up on Amazon (AMZN) or Best Buy (BBY) sites, they are out of stock due to component shortages, and pricing, which we show only for reference, varies considerably with processor, memory, and drive configuration.  The pricing range is what we consider the most important.

​Yesterday we noted that one of China’s better known OLED panel producers, while announcing strong sales and new orders, was also reporting a net profit loss due to expenses relating to the development of products for such new customers.  In all fairness, that was certainly the exception to the rule in 1H for Chinese panel producers, who saw massive increases in net profits on a y/y basis.  While not all have given projections as to their profit for the 1st half, the table below points to those that have and the improvement over last year’s 1H results, although we note that the improvement in demand and panel prices began late in the 2nd quarter, making such comparisons a bit exaggerated.  That said, with both demand and panel prices up, Chinese panel producers were able to leverage the capacity that they have been adding over the last few years.  How long that lasts is a much more important question.  Gareth L. Powell said it well, “We never know when we’re living through the good times.  It’s only when everything turns to ashes and crap we realize how fortunate we really were.”

If you sit in front of a display all day, monitors can become a big point of focus, and multiple monitor set-ups have become quite common in the fintech world.  That said, such set-ups are relatively difficult to maintain and have (dare we say the word?) bezels, those nasty frames around the edges of displays that keep you from having a ‘seamless’ viewing experience, as the literature reads.  Ultra-large monitors and even TVs have helped to fashion more ‘natural’ set-ups, and for gamers, such displays are a given.  Soon those multiple display configurations seen in ‘Billions’ or other perhaps older TV shows or movies, will give way to the ultra-wide monitors now being offered by the same vendors that were hawking that 13” CRT monitor that is wrapped in a blanket in your basement.

​While COVID-19 has stepped up the demand for high-end monitors from gamers, the trend was already in effect before the pandemic and ultrawide monitor offerings from well-known and obscure brands were already available more than two years ago.  Now, despite their high price tag, they have become a mainstay for gamers and are the logical choice for those that need to have multiple windows open and would like the text size to be readable without having to lean toward the display.  35” ultra-wide monitors are essentially the minimum size in the gaming world, with 49” UWs becoming more common, and while there are characteristics that give these more specialized monitors an advantage over TVs,  we have seen 55” 8K TVs used as monitors in situations where the aspect ratio and refresh rate are not an issue.
But Samsung is taking ultra-wide monitors to the next level at the end of this month, when it releases the Odyssey Neo G9 ultra-wide monitor to its already established G9 UW monitor series.  While the details of this monitor have not been revealed yet,  based on what we have seen so far, and Samsung’s desire to stay ahead of the competition, we expect this will be Samsung’s first mini-LED/Quantum Dot gaming monitor.  The G9 series already uses a curved QD enhanced LCD display (up to 49”) that has a 9:32 aspect ratio that is necessary for gaming, a 5,120 x 1,440 resolution, a 240Hz. refresh rate, and a typical brightness of 420 nits, but as we have noted before, the LED backlight system needed to operate an LCD display can cause a ‘bloom’ effect that comes from LED light leaking into dark areas or a lack of contrast in lighter areas.
In order to better manage backlighting, which is the basis for all LCD displays, the industry has been moving from what were originally a relatively small number of LEDs arranged around the edge of the display, to an array of LEDs arranged in ‘strings’ that can be more precise in matching the lighting characteristics of an image.  That said, in such displays the ‘strings’ are actually groups of LEDs that operate as one (comprising a ‘zone’) which means they could span areas of an image that contain both dark and light content, which causes the effects mentioned above.  To give the monitor or TV more contrast (the difference between the blackest black and the whitest white), backlight designers came up with Mini-LED backlighting which is an array of a large number of smaller LEDs.  By reducing the size of the ‘strings’ and increasing the number of ‘zones’ using mini-LEDs, TV set and monitor designers have increased the granularity of the backlight, which reduces ‘bloom’ and increases contrast.
As we have previously noted, TV brands have already begun to offer mini-LED backlit sets, with offerings from Samsung Electronics (005930.KS), LG Electronics (066570.KS), and TCL (000100.CH), but in the monitor world, even the higher spec gaming segment, there are only a few monitors that have high zone count backlights, and none call themselves ‘mini-LED’ monitors, making the Samsung G9 Neo sort of the first of its kind (if we are correct).  Two of Samsung’s UW competitors are the ASUS (2357.TT) ROG Swift PG27, which boasts a 27” curved QD enhanced LCD display (3840 x 2160) with 384 zones and a 144 Hz refresh rate, and the ACER (2353.TT) Predator X35, a 35” QD enhanced LCD display (3440 x 1440) with 512 zones and a 200 Hz refresh rate, both of which have a typical brightness of 600 nits. 
Samsung’s existing G49 UW monitor, while it has a 240 Hz refresh rate, its typical brightness is 420 nits, which means it is less bright than the competition.  But not only will the use of mini-LEDs allow higher BLU granularity as such backlight arrays are set-up to have more precise control over the much larger number of LEDs, the cumulative effect of a larger number of controllable LEDs across the display should also increase the average brightness.  Of course, along with all of these benefits, there are some drawbacks.  Driving this type of display will be limited to very high-end video cards and the complexity of mini-LED backlights will certainly increase the cost of such units, but the migration of mini-LEDs into monitors is a significant step in the evolution of mini-LEDs and LCD technology.  If we are right about Samsung’s upcoming Odyssey Neo G9 monitor, it will be closely examined by gamers, and if it performs the way we expect, it should reset the bar for UW high-end gaming monitors and open another market for mini-LEDs.

​The social unrest facing South Africa after the detention of the country’s former president, has begun to affect both Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) and LG Electronics (066570.KS) who have both seen substantial damage to facilities in a number of cities.   According to local press a Samsung warehouse was broken into and looted on Tuesday and an LG Electronics plant was also looted and burned to the ground.  The Samsung plant in Durban, which is close to the Airport which is a secure facility, is still intact but the amount of damage is still unknown, and since it is the only TV assembly plant in the sub-Saharan region, it is a key facility for Samsung. The LG plant is responsible for LCD TV and monitor assembly and generates ~$50m/yr in revenue, so the loss of that plant will also be a significant blow to LGE, and the company has yet to decide whether it relocate, withdraw, or re build the facility, as the unrest continues, with a number of other South Korean businesses in Durban also targeted by looters.

​We have expressed our concern that many in the CE supply chain look at the demand seen over the last year and assume (or want to assume) that things will stay this way going forward.  While the residual effects of COVIS-19 lockdowns and sequestering will have some effect on the global social structure, as the COVID-19 pandemic eases, there seems to be a great desire among most to return to some more normalized way of life.  Some will remain in isolation for their own reasons, and some businesses that were already moving in such a direction will carry a higher percentage of remote workers, but we have trouble envisioning a ‘new world order’ where the global population remains in front of some sort of display for most of their day.  That is not to say things will change quickly, as the disparity between countries and regions as to their ability to control the virus will remain a gating factor, but unless we are speaking about a long-term generational change, we expect demand for those products that became dear during the pandemic will subside.
The timing of such changes will vary considerably, so we look at the CE space on a product by product basis, with some components that are difficult to make and require high cost and years to add capacity, remaining in demand for some time, but there are many others that have seen a big boost in demand over the last year, far exceeding the norm, that will gently return to what might be considered more normal growth.
One product category that has seen a very significant change in demand is notebooks, and a recent note from Taiwan based Trendforce, while reaming in their typical optimistic stance, ushered in the same caution that we expect to see in a number of CE products later this year.  After noting that global notebook shipments were up almost 20% last year, against a more typical 3% to 4%, they expect notebook growth to approach 15% this year, but decline 6% in 2022.  While that is heresy for one’s who almost always have a positive bias, they also add that they believe 3Q notebook growth will be flat and 4Q growth could be down 3%.
A considerable amount of the growth in notebook demand last year and this, has come from Chromebooks, non-Windows laptops that operate under Google’s (GOOG) Chrome OS and are designed to use the internet as a storage and application base.  As these notebooks are lower in price than a Windows™ based device might be, they have been the device of choice for stay-at-home students on a global basis.  Demand for Chrome books is based in the US, with only 30% of demand coming from other regions and Japan accounting for over 30% of the remainder, but as the US begins to emerge from the pandemic, demand for Chromebooks, much of which has been pulled forward over the last few quarters, will begin to slow, and Japan, whose GIGA School program has been a major demand pull, has begun to slow its procurement.
But…inventory levels are not excessive, as component shortages have limited buyers from achieving their purchase goals, so the slowdown will likely be a bit more gradual than a massive q/q shortfall, but at the same time, panel and component prices have also risen, making Chromebooks less profitable for brands such as Samsung and Acer (2353.TT), who have staked out a large claim in the space, and when there are other more profitable devices to sell CE brands will ask the question, “Chromebook?  Why not just come over here and look at this wonderful smart TV that gives you the same benefits and has a 65” screen.”  While the more optimistic view is that this will be just a small bump in the ‘new’ road we are on, we have no bias toward a particular product or CE producer, just 30 years of hearing the same ‘this time it’s different’ story at every cyclical juncture.