Smartphone brands are constantly trying to adapt to what is an extremely competitive environment.  Each year almost every brand has at least one major model release, and those with more extensive lines, can have two or three, with a number of brands also developing sub-brands  to maintain a certain brand image, while broadening their reach with consumers.  For instance Chinese smartphone producer Xiaomi (1810.HK) produces it own ‘Redmi’ smartphone line but also produces the ‘POCO’ brand of mid-range smartphones and the ‘Black Shark’ line of high-end gaming phones.
As consumers’ wants evolve, brands must adapt and offer a more or less diverse line of phones to broaden their customer base.  In some cases this means segmenting price points or feature sets, but shipments and share are the goalposts in the smartphone business and new models must perform or they drag down the brand and eat into profits.  The planning for new models is a complex issue as it rests on both the expertise of the brand’s marketing department and the company’s technical ability to satisfy evolving customer needs.  While brands can test new devices internally, using staff and focus groups, given the competitive nature of these products and the number of folks trying to get a peek before release, much depends on the expertise of the internal organization and even the most experienced product developers sometimes miscalculate, as it is very easy to convince oneself that such decisions are correct when your job depends on it.  The table below shows how Samsung’s Galaxy line models have evolved over the years.

Last year, years of progressively disappointing sales of the Galaxy S Plus series pushed Samsung to develop the Galaxy S25 Edge with the intention of substituting the Galaxy Edge for the Galaxy S Plus in 2026.  Unfortunately the sales of the Edge, which was a modified Galaxy S25+ that was 1.5mm. thinner, 27 grams lighter, had a bigger main camera, and a bigger battery for $100 more than the S25+.  Expectations were high pre-release, but early sales were disappointing, and Samsung seems to have set very low production volume for the remainder of the year for the S25 Edge, especially relative to the Galaxy S25+, which it was thought to be replacing next year, and the top Galaxy sellers, the S25 and the S25 Ultra.
According to industry sources here are the expected production volumes for the period between September and December:

• Galaxy 25 Edge                         300,000
• Galaxy S25+                               500,000
• Galaxy S25                                 2,900,000
• Galaxy S25 Ultra                       3,400,000

This substandard performance for the S25 Edge seems to have put the Galaxy S26+ program back into next year’s development lineup.  The question is whether Samsung has enough long-term confidence in whether the S26 Edge will sell more if the S26+ is not released.  Right now it seems they are hedging their bets by developing all four models, but it seems counterintuitive to release both the S26+ and the S26 Edge next year as they are quite close in price and function. 
Actual mass production for the displays begins later this month, although both the Galaxy S26+ and the Galaxy S26 Edge will use the same display, making early orders less dependent on a final decision.  That said, Samsung usually announces the upcoming Galaxy S series line in late January to early February, so a decision does need to be made soon.  The default would be to produce all four, but with the company trying to squeeze as much margin as possible out of the mobile division, three would likely be more profitable if they could boost sales for whichever model is chosen.  As both the S+ and the Edge sit between the Ultra and the standard Galaxy S, price will be more difficult to maneuver, which means features will likely be the selling point without overshadowing the Ultra.   No pressure…

Buying a TV is a chore.  TV brands list dozens of features many of which are esoteric and undecipherable for the average buyer and having sold TVs and stereos many years ago, one learns that there are many tricks retailers use to ‘enhance’ the look of in-store TV demos. Salespeople range from overly technical  (an 82 year-old grandmother, replacing a 24” CRT TV does not need to know about the quality of the upscaler) to overly folksy (My cousin bought this one and his wife loves it), with fiscal influences always in the back of the salesperson’s mind.  Even in stores where salespeople do not work on commission, memos about certain brands with ‘more attractive margins’ tend to influence recommendations and don’t always jive with what might be best for the customer.  We are not saying that salespersons are misleading, but bias is not easily controlled and can be a silent influencer.
Doing research on TVs for the average consumer usually consists of finding one or two sites that list ‘the best of…’ and jotting down a few names and model numbers, or (hopefully not) reading product reviews on Yelp (YELP) or Amazon (AMZN).  Most disconcerting to us are the TV ads that point to ‘Huge discounts’ or ‘big price drop’ that are meant to give the consumer the impression that they need to buy right away or they will lose those discounts.  The common practice is to always state the current ‘discounted’ price against the MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price).  This tends to be the price point of the model’s initial release, which in most cases is the highest price the TV will ever see, so a ‘30% price drop’ rarely means a drop from wherever the set was priced most recently, but more likely a 30% drop from the MSRP.  Technically, despite how misleading it might be, this 30% discount could put the set at a higher price than its previous price point but it is still considered legitimate advertising (read the small print).
All of this makes one wonder  how much timing really matters when buying a TV, as it seems many influences can move prices up and down in an almost random pattern, yet nothing can be further from the truth.  TV pricing has a very specific yearly trajectory and pattern, which consumers should understand in order to make the ideal TV purchase.  Here are a few points to remember:

• Don’t buy on product release
• New TV models are typically released in 2Q, which means last year’s models tend to be the most attractively priced in 1Q
• Holidays are your friends when buying a TV
• Short-term discounts tend to be less important than the time of year
• Lowest price points for TVs (Premium) occur between day 300 (~October 28) and day 330 (November 26).
• TV set prices can go up quickly in December

We have been tracking all models of Samsung’s (005930.KS) Premium TV line (8K & 4K Mini-LED/QD, QD Only, and both QD/OLED and WOLED) since 2021 and the data proves this out.  So unless you are looking to buy a set for a specific event, it makes sense to have patience.  On a normalized basis, across Samsung’s entire TV line (Excluding OLED) from 2021 to 2024, having the patience to wait until late October/Early November would result in  a 26.8% average savings.  We note also that the 2025 year, as can be seen above, has been an anomaly, as even normalized prices have run above the average for the first half and below the average for the 3rd quarter.  Attribution for this unusual behavior is hard to pin down to a particular source, but we expect the bulk of the higher pricing is a result of both the monetary and psychological impact of US tariffs; less so from the tariffs themselves and more so on collective impact, with a dash of “everyone is expecting prices to go up, so let’s increase them.”  That said, we expect that prices across the Samsung line will decline in-line or greater than the norm for the remainder of the year.

​Note:  In order to compensate for new and deleted models and  feature changes we bring each year’s starting MSRP to a single point.  This normalization tracks throughout the year and allows for a better comparison as to how line price changes are occurring throughout the year and how they compare to previous years.  Again, this data is for Samsung’s Mini-LED/QD, QD only lines and does not include OLED.  OLED data is available on request.
While the data is helpful to consumers, it is also helpful to inventors who own public panel producer and display infrastructure investments, however we note that panel producer performance is greatly influenced by the build cycle rather than the buy cycle, with each product category having  specific periods during the year as to when new products enter production and inventories are being built for sale points during the remainder of the year.

The US National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 3838 -119th Congress) is a massive appropriations bill that sets policies and authorizations for fiscal 2026 for the DOD, security programs for the Department of Energy and the Maritime Administration, and authorizes appropriations for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board and the Naval Petroleum Reserves.  Most importantly here, it modulates the US defense acquisition system to expedite the delivery of capabilities and materials to our Armed Forces.  The House of Representatives recently passed an amendment to this vast appropriations bill that could have relevance to the CE space.
While the final wording has yet to be published, what we have seen indicates that the bill could bar the Armed Forces from purchasing displays, particularly ‘advanced displays’, such as OLED or more specialized display modalities, if they are backed by the Chinese or Russian government.  Again the exact wording is important and yet to be revealed, but that could easily mean that any Chinese display producer that is receiving government subsidies could be considered to be ‘supported’ by the Chinese government and banned, and we believe all Chinese panel producers receive at least some government subsidies.
Using this amendment, the government could ban all display purchases from Chinese panel producers, giving an advantage to Samsung Display (pvt), LG Display (LPL), both based in South Korea, Sharp (6753.JP), based in Japan, and AU Optronics (2409.TT) and Innolux (3481.TT), both based in Taiwan, along with a number of small panel producers outside of China.  More specifically,  relating to OLED, the amendment would allow the US to ban both large and small OLED displays from all six Chinese OLED producers.  While the DOD categorizes display purchases by program, making it difficult to get a total display spending budget for a particular year, estimates for this year are substantially over $1b. Whether the US government will choose to use this amendment as a bargaining chip in its ongoing trade negotiations with China is yet unknown, but they have it in their pocket if the need it.