As we have been tracking TV set pricing for Samsung’s (005930.KS) 8K and 4K Mini-LED/QD and QD only sets since their release in May of last year, along with this year’s models, we can get a good picture as to where Samsung set pricing is relative to premium TV set pricing.
Samsung has eliminated a number of last year’s models from its website, particularly the top-end (900 series) 8K mini-LED/QD sets, (the 85” model had a price of $5,000 on our last check) some 4K mini-LED/QD sets (85A) and some quantum dot only sets (80A).  Most are still available on Amazon (AMZN) and a few other sites, but at much higher prices than where they ended on Samsung’s site.  More importantly, there was relatively little discounting on the remaining 2021 models over the last month or so.
That was not the case with the 2022 models, where discounting heading into November was very heavy.  The six 8K min-LED/QD sets offered this year saw a 15.7% drop over the last 55 days (9/9 to current), the 12 4K mini-LED/QD sets saw a 12.3% decline, and the QD only sets (2022 only) saw an 8.7% decline, while all 4K sets combined saw a 10.7% decline, and the value of the 2022 sets on a price/in2 of surface declined by 39.4% so far this year.
This puts 33 of the 36 sets in the 2022 mini-LED/QD or QD only line at their lowest point this year, with the 3 that are not at their lowest point all being 98” sets that have remained at $15,000 since they were released.  Looking at Figure 1, it is obvious that TV set price reductions have begun earlier this year than last and while this year’s year-end prices might be closer together than current prices would indicate, we expect they will be lower given the economic situation this year. 
With Black Friday only 25 days away, we expect Samsung to continue to offer more aggressive discounts this year to entice customers who are facing a much weaker economic scenario than last year.  The TV space overall has already been facing a difficult year as we have noted in the past, but while brand shipment/production expectations have declined as the year progressed, primarily in the 2nd half, more recent cuts seem to indicate that TV brands have come to a point where they have to choose between reducing prices to gain unit volume or trying to maintain margins on lower unit sales.  Samsung has recently cut its shipment/production expectations by ~12.5%, and given that they are the largest TV set producer globally, we expect they are indicative of what other brands are contemplating.  If we were to apply the same reduction that Samsung recently made and applied it to all of the other brands, the result would be shown in Figure 2 ‘current column.  Note that some brands will not see cuts that large while others will see worse, so the ‘current’ column is an illustration, not an estimate.  We expect actual 4Q results to be modestly better than shown.

LEDs have radically changed the world of lighting, moving us from low efficiency incandescent filament illumination to high efficiency solid state illumination, and a quick look at a few statistics shows how important LED lighting is toward reducing the global energy footprint.  However, aside from the very compelling metrics, there are some issues with LEDs that make them rather difficult to work with in certain situations.  While incandescent lighting tends to be ‘warm’ that is having a color temperature of between 2,000K and 3,000K, while CFLs tend to be ‘cooler’, meaning less yellow and more blue, while LEDs can vary considerably between warm and cold depending on their structure.  This can be confusing for consumers who are not used to choosing a color for their home lighting.
While color temperature can be an issue, more difficult is the fact that LEDs are point source emitters, and while they are very efficient at converting energy to light, that light is concentrated in a very small space.  Most LED bulbs are coated with materials that help to disperse that light, but it is difficult to diffuse LED light when compared to incandescent lighting.  When LED lighting is used in some specific applications, such as a museum or in store product lighting, the LED bulb must focus the light to the specific area being highlighted, which in many cases means an optical lens must be added or am LED bulb specifically designed for that application is necessary.
Japan Display (6740.JP), a company known for its small panel LED displays, has developed a new product through a subsidiary that uses the capabilities of LCDs to make LED lighting adjustable to a user’s needs.  Typically LED lighting with an optical lens creates a circular ‘spot’ that can be adjusted by moving the source closer or further from the object, which is not always a viable solution.  The brightness and color are adjustable, but shaping the ‘spot’ is not an option without changing the optics, which means small run LED production tends to produce expensive product.  Japan Display promises to end that issue by replacing the optics with a lens composed of liquid crystal, the same material used in all LCD displays.
While we do not know the details quite yet, the liquid crystal is used to change the refractive index of the LED light, which allows it to be shaped on both the horizontal and vertical axes.  This means that a user can adjust the shape of the LED light on the fly.  This can be done using a touch screen control or similar device, giving the user complete control over the shape of the light, meaning one could expand the light to its maximum coverage or create a spot of almost any shape to highlight an object or read.
Of course, JDI has projections as to how the creation of a new industry in 2023/24 will generate ~$67m in incremental sales by 3Q 2026, after sampling to potential customers this month and scheduling mass production for April of 2023, but until we see a cost analysis of the product, we reserve judgement on the financial aspects of the product.  That said, there are few new applications being generated for the LCD space, and any new application adds to the potential lifetime of LCD technology which is under siege from a variety of alternative display technologies.  While this application is specific to Japan Display (there are many companies that produce static optical lenses for LED lighting) and has yet to be commercialized by JDI or its customers, it is a novel approach to one of the drawbacks of LED lighting and credit should be given for working with the company’s strong suit in small LCD technology.
Here are 46s second and 27 second videos that show how the product functions:
https://youtu.be/1nq1GF_Bq94
https://youtu.be/dQFtiShMtQE
 
 

​Huawei (pvt) has been the recipient of all of the political muscle that the US has to bear, taking the company from the market-leading global; supplier to much of the world, a shell of its former self.  Whether justified or not, the pressure that has been placed on the company has limited its ability to compete in the global market as a telecom supplier, as a smartphone manufacturer, and as a developer of new product technology.  The company’s founder has tried to downplay the effects of the stringent trade bans placed on the company, which were based on the assumption that the country rules that Chinese companies have to allow the government access to data when the ‘national security’ of the country is under siege.  This produced the assumption that Huawei has put ‘backdoors’ in its equipment, allowing it to monitor the calls of US and other allies.
The damage to Huawei has been significant, and the company is no longer a global smartphone producer and faces the replacement of much of its equipment in the US telecom infrastructure, but one thing it does have is IP that it developed during its hay-day as the largest producer of mobile devices.  We noted on 9/24 that the company’s founder and CEO, Ren Zhengfei, indicated that he is moving the company toward a new direction, one that is better suited to the coming decade of weak consumer demand that he foresees.  We noted that Huawei is China’s largest privately owned patent holder, and as such has the ability to utilize those patents as a way to generate income, with many being basic telecom patents for mobile devices.  In the past Huawei has been lax about enforcing many of those patents, but that philosophy seems to be at an end, despite earlier statements to the contrary, as the company is pushed deeper into the trade abyss. 
Huawei recently filed a lawsuit against Amazon and Compal (2324.TT) In the People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, and while neither the plaintiff or the defendants have commented on the filing, it is expected it has to do with tablet IP owned by Huawei.  With the company owning more than 45,000 patent families and ranks #5 as to patents authorized by the US patent office, and generating between $1.2b and $1.3b in IP revenue during 2019 and 2021, they have the ability to leverage that IP further.  While the CEO has answered the question about ‘weaponizing’ the company’s vast IP by stating “We are too busy, we are developing too fast, and we have no time to collect patent fees…”, it would seem that they now have the free time needed to go after those fees.

Japan Display (6740.JP), in keeping with its goal of reducing costs to bring the company back to profitability, has sold its display module facility in Suzhou to a Chinese OEM, converting fixed costs to variable.  The module plant, which was incorporated in 1996, takes raw (‘open cell’) panels produced by JDI and adds backlighting, a frame, and a number of other components to create a display that can be used in a device.  The subsidiary had annual sales between $394m and $487m over the last three years, but had net margins of 0.6% to 2.8% over the same period.  The sale price, which is subject to a final audit, is ~$139m, which represents ~32.2% of the average of sales over the last three years.  The sale is expected to be completed sometime between January and March of next year as it must be approved by a number of government organizations, and JDI will continue to use the module plant as a customer of the buyer, DSBJ (002384.CH), an OEM and assembler based in Suzhou.
While the last few years have been quite difficult for Japan Display as its primary customer, Apple (AAPL) has converted from LCD displays to OLED displays for its iPhone line, with JDI having little or no OLED capacity[1].  The company brought in Scott Callon, the Chairman of Ichigo (2337.JP), and the investment firm that bailed out JDI in 2020, as Chairman and CEO in to guide the company toward a new business model.  Since then the new JDI management has closed one of four JDI LCD fabs in Japan and sold another module facility to Wistron (3231.TT) and while the company is still losing money on a quarterly basis the losses are considerably smaller than in the past and the company’s product portfolio is more oriented toward newer technology where JDI has an edge.  All in, while it is both a difficult display environment and a hard road toward profitability, JDI seems to be making considerable progress toward regaining some of the statue the company had as a major supplier of small panel displays years ago.


[1] JDI shares a board member with JOLED 

Back in the 1950s and 1960s a theater critic named Martin Esslin came up with the term ‘The Theatre of the Absurd’ which was a moniker for plays that dealt with the philosophy of Albert Camus and how the life of human beings is a series of circumstances that put them in ‘hopeless’ situations that force them into meaningless actions.  While this sounds depressing and painful, many of the plays associated with the Theatre of the Absurd were comedies, pointing out the ‘grin and bear it’ view of the human condition.
But Esslin and ToA playwrights like Ionesco and Beckett could not have come up with a more absurdist plot like the one that played out in the High Court of Singapore this month between Janesh Rajkumar and “Chefpierre”, a person of unknown name or location.  The lawsuit defines NFTs as ‘property’ under Singapore law, which justified the court’s recent injunction against the sale of a piece of NFT art, part of the collection known as “Bored Ape Yacht Club” that are well-known collector’s items in the NFT space.  Prices for some of the ~10,000 cartoon monkeys in the collection have reached ~$150,000, with investors such as Justin Bieber, Madonna, Mark Cuban, and Shaquille O’Neal creating an unusually robust market for the drawings, each of which are promoted as being ‘the only one of its kind in existence’.  The item that is the basis for the lawsuit (Figure 3) is said to have the following ‘special’ characteristics:

• A “jovial mouth” – A trait only 3% of the items in the collection can claim
• “Red Fur” – A trait which only 5% of the items in the collection had.
• A “beanie hat” – A trait which only 6% of the items in the collection sported.
• “Bored Eyes” – a trait which only 17% of the collection could claim.
• A “Purple Background” – which only 13% of the items had.

…and (our favorite)…

• It was a “virgin ape”, which in the court document was defined as not having been “fed with any mutant serum”, which, if fed, would have created a mutated version of the original ape, according to the claimant’s affidavit.

But wait, there’s more…

The claimant acquired the NFT on August 6, 2021 on the OpenSea (pvt) platform for 15.99 ETH, which we calculate was $46,226.13 (based on closing price) from ‘victorjia_eth”.  The claimant used the purchased NFT as collateral for loans to buy other NFTs, being careful to use only highly ranked lenders on the NFTfi (pvt) system, a platform designed to match NFT users with cryptocurrency lenders.  Janesh was careful to specify that the NFT would be held in an NFTfi escrow account until the debt was repaid and that if the repayment was not made on time, he would inform the lender and reasonable extensions could be given, also adding that at no time would the lender utilize the ‘foreclosure’ option on the NFT without first granting the claimant reasonable opportunities to make full repayment and retrieve the NFT from escrow.
As Janesh had used the same criteria for other loans using the NFT above, all of which were paid back in time, he thought there would be no problem when he asked a new lender (chiefpierre.eth) to make a loan for 45 ETH ($153,828.45) on January 6, 2022 for 90 days at 33% interest/yr.  The lender agreed to the terms, including the non-foreclosure option and on March 18, 2022 the lender agreed to another loan for ~$150,000 for 30 days at 45% interest.  When the claimant informed the lender on April 17 that he would need a short extension to pay back the March loan, the lender agreed and reassured him that the NFT would be returned to him once the loan was paid in full.  A few days later, when the claimant informed the lender that he had contacted another entity who would grant him a loan to pay back “chefpierre.eth”, the chief decided to offer a refinance roll-up that would provide fresh funds to Janesh and deduct the outstanding loan.
That said, as one might guess, “chiefpierre.eth” changed his mind and informed Janesh that he must pay the loan back in full by April 22 or he would exercise the foreclosure option on NFTfi,  Janesh was caught without ample time to find alternative financing, and the chief exercised the foreclosure option and moved the NFT from escrow into his account.  While Janesh was ‘devastated’ he assumed that the lender would return the NFT when full payment was made and made a partial payment, but the chief no longer would discuss the matter, returned the partial payment and stopped the platform from accepting any other payments.  Subsequently the NFT was listed for sale on Opensea and had a number of offers from potential buyers pushing the claimant to file a suit, including an injunction against the sale of the NFT.
The court agreed to the fact that the claimant was a Singapore citizen and effected the purchase in Singapore, giving it dominion over the suit, which was extremely important as if the court did not agree that it had jurisdiction, there was no other court that could rule, given that the NFT itself is held in the Ethereum blockchain, a network of computers across the world.  But there was also the fact that the defendant’s (chiefpierre.eth) actual name and location were unknown.  The ruling cited a precedent that stated that the defendant was not required to be specifically named, allowing the proceedings to continue, and also agreed that there was a ‘serious matter to be tried’, a requirement for the injunction. That said, the question remained as to whether the NFT itself was able to ‘give rise to proprietary rights’ as the NFT is really just information which would have questionable rights, but the court saw the NFT as ‘data encoded in a certain manner and securely stored on a blockchain ledger’, and ruled that the NFT did carry the right to be considered property and not just data.
The absurdity comes from a number of points here, the first of which is why some folks consider 10,000 cartoons of apes valuable, but we know the obvious answer is that they consider it valuable only because someone else says so, and there is the possibility that said ‘other’ person might be willing to buy it.  Flashing the names of celebrities in front of people who are unable to control their emotions is certainly a way for some to make money collecting fees and interest, but we have to fall back on the old adage that ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, so if someone finds cartoons of apes beautiful or in some way valuable, it’s their money and they should not be limited in what they want to do with it, no more than the purchase of a Rolls Boat Tail should be limited. 
However, when it comes to defining property under the law the answers about whether a string of numbers that is spread across the globe is property is going to take years to define, and while we commend the Singapore courts for its efforts to define said NFT, we know only one group that is guaranteed to make money on NFTs and that is lawyers who we expect will be arguing for or against whatever NFT questions hit the courts all over the world.  Will there be a unified answer that will stand the test of time?  We doubt it, so for now it all seems like we remain a member of the cast of the Theatre of the Absurd, searching for meaning in the incomprehensible universe of NFTs and cryptocurrencies.

Sounds like a novel you read as a young teen, but it represents the evolution of mobile devices that we can use to make our daily lives easier.  Of course this comes with a dependency that has become ‘the silent epidemic’, but that is for another day, while right now we seem to be on the verge of a potential transition to the next level of mobile ‘convenience’ devices, the smart ring.  While smart rings are currently available from a number of brands, most of which are not recognizable names and are privately funded, but the big boys are just around the corner, sort of.
Apple (AAPL) filed its first ‘ring’ patent back in 2015, followed by Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) just two month later, with both adding follow-up filings over the years, but both were beaten by Amazon (AMZN) who released the “Echo Loop” in September 2019, only to kill the product before year-end 2020.  Apple’s ring development is said to be linked to its potential XR device while Samsung’s development path is more toward being a ‘control’ center for a variety of devices, but the ‘rings’ that are currently available are more like smart watches in that they typically measure and track a number of body functions, and potentially offer advice as to how to ‘live your best life’, meaning staying healthy, while others are far more specific to the needs of specific user types.
For instance, the Oura (pvt) Gen 3, a $349 device made from titanium and weighing between 4g to 6g, comes with 6 month of free ‘membership’ ($5.99/month thereafter) and includes an optical heart rate sensor, a blood oxygen sensor, a skin temperature sensor, and a PPG sensor that measures HRV (Heart rate variability aka Photoplethysmography), a substitute for ECG that has recently been incorporated in a number of commercially available devices, along with an accelerometer.  The devices lasts between 4 and 7 days before recharging and the membership software, aside from the data itself, gives you an in-depth sleep analysis every morning, personalized health insights and recommendations, live heart rate monitoring, and skin temperature readings to let you know if you are sick or heading into a menstrual cycle.

While the Oura is at the top of ring pricing, there are a number of other less expensive ring devices that offer more specific functions, such as the $100 McLear (pvt) ring that is designed to execute “RingPay” transactions, essentially a wallet that allows the user to make contactless purchases as if they were using a contactless card.  The company offers cash back rewards to users, which increase if you become a member, and allows multiple ‘rings’ and the ability to transfer between them, but no sensors for bodily function measurements.  One step further from the ‘measurement rings is the $58 ArcX (pvt) ring that serves as a Bluetooth joystick that allows you to control a smartphone, camera, and similar devices, while keeping the controlled device in a pocket or backpack.  You can use it to control music during a workout and even accept calls, all using one hand.

But Samsung and likely Apple seem to be taking the ring concept further and a 2021 South Korean filing by Samsung shows a far more sophisticated ring device that includes a display and is oriented toward being a control center for a variety of devices, and while it could have a variety of sensors, including photodiodes, LEDs, and a PPG sensor, the objective is to give the user easy access and control over their devices, without touching the device, through various touch and mechanical switches and dials built into the ring.  According to the patent documents the ring is able to pass on any sensor information to other devices when necessary or to evaluate sensor data and can be charged wirelessly.
The smartwatch market, the most similar to the rings described above was roughly $30b last year, so the development of any device that can feed into such a market is a given for major CE companies, and with the current crop of smart watches ranging from $60 (OnePlus (pvt)) to ~$800 (Apple Ultra), there seems to be enough interest in what is now a small and underserved market to attract some spending.  We expect much of the market evaluation at major CE companies is based on whether the smart ring market will eat into the smart watch market, but we believe the evaluation is much more complex and is oriented toward the impact it might have on the smartphone market, a cash cow for many CE companies. 
As brands face the constant battle to differentiate their smartphones, features become an important part of that differentiation, but as smartphones mature, it becomes more of a game to find something ‘new’, such as Samsung’s focus on foldable devices.  If smart rings can perform smart watch functions and allow you to keep your smartphone in your pocket for much of the day, it lessens the value of those two devices, not something major CE companies want to face.  That said, a good marketing department could latch on to a smart ring as an adjunct to a smartphone sale, as a $50 or $100 accessory.  Tablets were feared to have the potential to destroy the laptop market and yet they both exist, and foldable smartphones have been said to be the demise of tablets, but all still exist and find a niche where they provide the user with convenience, they key to CE popularity.  As we noted, a good marketing department can find a purpose for even the most worthless of CE products and based on what we have seen so far, there are certainly applications where smart rings make more sense than watches or even smartphones in some cases.

There has been little positive to say about the smartphone market this year, and as 3Q data comes out over the next few weeks, we have little hope that there will be any meaningful improvement, other than on a company specific basis, with expectations for a 3rd consecutive quarter of declining sales.  While 5G is a subset of smartphones sales and shipments, the segment continues to grow on an absolute basis with 5G smartphone device offerings growing 4.8% in September, up 65.8% y/y and up 41.2% YTD.  China however has been seeing a more difficult smartphone situation this year, with cumulative shipments through July down 23.0% over the same period last year, while 5G smartphone shipments on the Mainland are down 17.8% over the same period.  While we would not categorize China’s 5G market as ‘mature’, 5G in key cities has been available for some time and we expect the slow growth this year, indicates that China’s 5G smartphone growth has begun to fall into the category where it is more greatly affected by the smartphone market globally and in China than it has in the past, and with a ~60% 5G subscriber rate the days of ‘early adopter’ momentum are likely over.
On a global basis however, 5G is still progressing, with September data indicating m/m growth in almost all major categories as to device offerings and vendor growth.  We note that we expect form factor growth, while up 9.1% YTD, to remain relatively flat for the remainder of the year, as it represents new 5G devices categories, many of which have already been developed.  The number of new 5G vendors has seemingly leveled off at roughly 1.5% for the last few months, which translates to 3 to 4 new 5G vendors each month (over 200 now), but given the large number of vendors already involved in  the 5G market, we expect to see relatively little growth  in that category going forward.
More import however is the growth in 5G smartphone device offerings, which, as of September, total 1,579 of which 867 are smartphones.  As can be seen in Figure 2, overall 5G device growth has continued through the year, with smartphones leading that growth, up 41.2% YTD and 65.8% y/y and 333.5% over two years.  CPE (Customer premise equipment) devices, which would be the equivalent to the ONT (Optical Network terminal) box that connects fiber from outside to your modem and router, is helpful in understanding carrier adoption of 5G as an FWA (Fixed Wireless Access) product that can be used in a home or office, which would compete with fiber or cable, a much more ‘emerging’ market than 5G mobile.  FWA is expected to account for ~20+% of all mobile network traffic by 2026, so while the growth is has been relatively slow as 5G is being built out, we expect the number of offerings to continue to increase as the user base grows.
All in September for 5G seems to have held up better than almost any other aspect of the smartphone market, and while it is still affected by the overall smartphone specific and global macro environment, carriers in developed countries continue to roll out coverage and add 5G subscribers, with governments in other countries now beginning to allocate b5G bandwidth to local carriers.  We expect 5G growth globally to continue based on C-band auctions, as C-band spectrum represents a tradeoff between lower performing 5G bands that have vast coverage and high frequency bands that travel very limited distances.  As C-band is an attractive alternative, we watch the proliferation of C-band auctions and deployment around the globe to better understand the potential growth in 5G subscribers.  As such we remain optimistic that 5G is still in an a growth stage globally, and that while the overall smartphone market is a product of the macro environment, 5G growth is only partially affected by those factors and will continue to grow as countries begin or continue to grow their carrier  and customer bases over the next few years.

​Last week we noted the release of the delayed Matter standard, a platform of protocols that allows smart devices in the home to ‘speak’ a common language, and reduces the necessity for consumers to have dedicated control devices for each brand.  While we were and are certainly a fan of the Matter initiative, we also expressed concerns that while the list of Matter participants reads like a ‘Who’s Who’ of the CE space, there were some participants that seemed a bit less than enthusiastic about supporting the standards that would allow consumers to choose any control systems for their smart home products regardless of whether it was made by the device manufacturer, lowering the overall cost of smart home products, a major drawback for the industry in the past. 
The reason for our concern was the lack of support from CE giant Samsung Electronics (005930.KS), who has been promoting its ‘Smart Things’ platform quite heavily in recent months.  While press support from a number of the key Matter board representatives came at the time of the Matter release, Samsung was missing from the list and we feared that the South Korean giant may be backing away from the standard in favor of its own ‘smart’ platform.  It seems that it took Samsung just a bit longer to join the excitement but has now indicated that it is supporting the Matter initiative in a post last night, a key to the necessity for support from all major CE players..
“The seamless experience (Samsung’s) will extend beyond Samsung’s ecosystem through SmartThings’ integration with Matter and Samsung’s membership in the Home Connectivity Alliance. Google and Samsung have worked together to enable users to find and link their devices across platforms by building multi-admin feature on Matter devices. The collaboration will bring more devices and users into the connected home in the future.”
All in this is a major step toward at least the tacit implementation of the Matter standard across the smart home industry, which should help to reduce the cost of smart home products and give them at least a fighting toward interoperability.  As the smart home industry has been plagued with proprietary systems and high cost, the ability of Matter to allow devices, control systems, and networks to ‘speak’ a common language, gives consumers the choice of using a common control device for what used to be proprietary devices, and gives brands an incentive to compete on cost, which will drive consumer demand.  It will likely take a year or two for smart home brands to make changes to their way of thinking, particularly smaller brands, and longer for consumers to understand the benefits of the Matter certification, but in the long-run it should go a long way toward making the smart home market one that makes consumer’s lives easier rather than making them jump through hoops to turn off a light or check the thermostat.

​Good ideas are difficult to come by, and smartphones are no exception as the competition for new features, both hardware and software is intense.  While Apple (AAPL) is not known to be as much of a hardware innovator as other smartphone brands, typically waiting for either real customer acceptance of a new technology, or holding out until they are able to offer something one level above a ‘me-too’ feature.  We have mentioned that Apple has added the ability to send an emergency text message through a satellite network in locations where cell service is not available, and Apple also added ‘advanced motion algorithms’ to assist users who have been in a car accident or more serious crash.
 
The system evaluates a number of factors and Apple has said that it has been trained over millions of hours of real-world driving and data from crash recordings to generate accurate results, and a recent test at 40 kph (~25 mph) did not generate enough momentum to trigger an alert, especially as the test vehicle did not roll over.  At 50 mph the driver dropped the Apple Watch out of the window to simulate a high speed crash and rollover, which triggered the emergency system due to the high impact and rolling motion sensed by the sensors, including a 3 axis gyroscope and an accelerometer that takes readings 3 time each millisecond and microphones that can detect a loud sound such as a crash, along with GPS data that can indicate a rapid change in speed.  All well thought out ideas and coordinated by the algorithm itself based on the data it has been taught.
 
What it did not learn was about roller coasters, where the speed and momentum vary considerably with the weight of the car and the point at which it is measured, but the world’s fastest coasters easily break 100 mph, with the Formula Rossa coaster in Abu Dhabi hitting 150 mph.  Speed alone is not the only factor to consider as momentum mis a function of speed x velocity, and accelerometers, gyroscopes, and similar sensors don’t know the difference between a 90 foot drop on a coaster at 30 mph or a car rollover, which has caused a number of iPhone 14 users to find that their phones have been dialing 911 while they were riding coasters at amusement parks.  The iPhone system, should it sense what it believes is an accident, sounds an audio and visual alert, and will repeat the alarm if the user does not respond in 10 seconds.  After the 2nd attempt the phone or watch will dial emergency services.
 
It seems this is happening to users on roller coasters and to the few individuals who dropped their iPhone 14s or Apple watches out of a moving car, with emergency services being confounded by the call upon arrival, but you can’t fault Apple for trying or for the application for misunderstanding the extremely rapid speed changes of a typical roller coaster.  Its likely going to be updated in another software iteration with a ‘turn off crash detection for 10 minutes’ function or if you must ride a coaster sooner, just give it to someone on line to hold.  We are sure they will be there when you get off the ride…
 
 

​As we have noted over the past month or so, the Biden administration has been developing a set of new trade restrictions on semiconductors that are designed to extend those already imposed, with the intent of limiting China’s ability to compete in the world semiconductor markets and reduce China’s ability to develop a number of technologies, which the US government feels could be used to advance China’s military capabilities.  On Friday the US Bureau of Industry and Security/Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, a part of the US Department of Commerce, issued a statement on the implementation of new export controls on advanced computing and semiconductor manufacturing to the PRC and an additional 31 entities to the “Unverified List”, essentially a list of companies that the DOC says remain ‘unverified’ as to their ‘bona fides’ due to foreign government non-compliance.  Companies on the “Unverified List” get moved to the Entities List if they remain unverifiable for an extended period of time.  Nine entities on the “Unverified List” were removed, having met the requirements.
The new rules are as follows:

1. Adds certain advanced and high-performance computing chips and computer commodities to the Commerce Control List (CCL)
2. Adds new license requirements for items destined for a supercomputer or semiconductor development or production end use in the PRC – Supercomputer defined as 100 or greater 64-bit Petaflops od 200 or more 32-bit petaflops that is in a 4’ x 4’ x 6.5’ or smaller rack
3. Expands the scope of foreign-produced items subject to license requirements to twenty-eight existing entities on the Entity List that are located in the PRC (below).
4.  Adds certain semiconductor manufacturing equipment and related items to the CCL (below)
5. Adds new license requirements for items destined to a semiconductor fabrication “facility” in the PRC that fabricates ICs meeting specified items.
   1. Licenses for facilities owned by PRC entities will face a “presumption of denial,”
   2. Facilities owned by multinationals will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The relevant thresholds are as follows:

i.Logic chips with non-planar transistor architectures (I.e., FinFET or GAAFET) of 16nm or 14nm, or below
ii.DRAM memory chips of 18nm half-pitch or less

1. NAND flash memory chips with 128 layers or more.
2.  Restricts the ability of U.S. persons to support the development, or production, of ICs at certain PRC-located semiconductor fabrication “facilities” without a license – Support is defined as shipping, transmitting, or transferring (in country).
3. Adds new license requirements to export items to develop or produce semiconductor manufacturing equipment and related items
4. Establishes a Temporary General License (TGL) to minimize the short-term impact on the semiconductor supply chain by allowing specific, limited manufacturing activities related to items destined for use outside the PRC.

The new rules are a bit specific as to what equipment has been added but the idea is that any tools that aid in the development of semiconductors that are above ‘generic’ levels are being included, specifically those related to cobalt, which has promise in reducing the power requirements of semiconductors, an important part of supercomputers where massive numbers of processors are used.   While these rules began going into effect on October 7, with restrictions on personal development support beginning on 10/12 and advanced computing rules on 10/21, we expect the list of tools to continue to expand as the DOC delves further into potential advances in semiconductor process technology that can be used to advance supercomputing and AI.
While the exact language is not specified, exceptions to the ‘assumed denial’ rule that covers entities and equipment specified in this and previous orders, license exceptions (aka “Temporary General License”) will be given to “minimize the short-term impact on the semiconductor supply chain by allowing specific, limited manufacturing activities related to items destined for use outside of the PRC.”, which we assume to mean that non-Chinese companies operating in China will be able to produce and export semiconductors to customers outside of China, although the ‘temporary’ wording would suggest that the US government is encouraging those manufacturers to move production to the US or other locations outside of China.  Discussions between South Korean (Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) and SK Hynix (000660.KS) and the US government have been ongoing to clarify specific issues given their production locations on the Mainland.
The full rule (146 pages) is here:  https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-21658.pdf
Chinese semiconductor companies on the entities list (partial):

• Beijing Institute of Technology
• Beijing Sensetime Technology Development Co., Ltd. (0020.HK) (Case-by-case review)
• Changsha Jingjia Microelectronics Co., Ltd. (300474.CH)
• Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit
• Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics Technology
• China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 9th Academy 772 Research Institute
• Dahua Technology (002236.CH)
• Harbin institute of technology
• Higon (pvt)
• IFLYTEK (002230.CH) (Case-by-case review)
• Intellifusion (pvt) (Case-by-case review)
• Megvii Technology (pvt) (Case-by-case review)
• National Supercomputer Center Zhengzhou
• National Supercomputing Center Changsha/Guangzhou, Jinan, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Wuxi
• National University of Defense Technology
• New H3C Semiconductor Technologies Co., Ltd (HPE JV)
• Northwestern Polytechnical University
• Shanghai High-Performance Integrated Circuit Design Center; Sugon
• Sunway Microelectronics
• Tianjin Phytium Information Technology
• Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology
• Yitu Technologies (pvt) (Case-by-case review)

 
List of Added Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment (Partial)
 

• Equipment for depositing cobalt through electroplating processes
• CVD for cobalt or tungsten deposition (<3nm)
• Any tool that can fabricate Tungsten metal contacts between 100⁰C and 500⁰C
• Any tool that conducts a plasma process that includes Hydrogen, Oxygen, Cobalt, Tungsten, and Ammonia derivatives at certain temperatures
• PVD deposition tools for Cobalt at 10nm or less
• Atomic Layer Deposition tools depositing organometallic aluminum and Titanium Halide
• Any tool capable of depositing Titanium Nitride or Tungsten Halide
• Sputtering tools for Cobalt deposition
• Tools that can fabricate copper interconnects that include cobalt or ruthenium
• Any equipment capable of area selective deposition of a barrier or liner using an organometallic compound.