Back in August we noted a few points about the development and adoption of blue phosphorescent OLED materials (“Singing the Blues”) and also indicated some hesitancy about the excitement that had gathered around the pending development of a blue phosphorescent OLED emitter material next year.  While the development of same by a number of companies, including Universal Display (OLED), Samsung Display (pvt), Sumitomo Chemical (4005.JP), Idemitsu Kosan (5019.JP), Merck (MRK), and Lumiotec (pvt), as well as a number of well-known universities, continues, the actual adoption of a blue phosphorescent material into a commercial OLED stack is a more difficult task and one that is likely not to adhere to the aggressive timelines than many hope for.
Universal Display began reporting commercial revenue from phosphorescent emitters in late 2005, primarily from its red emitter.  Previously the company’s sales came from developmental materials sold to customers and developmental contracts.  The first color OLED smartphone was the Samsung (005930.KS) X120, released in 1Q 2004, which had a 1.8” OLED display, was able to reproduce 65,000 colors, with a resolution of 128 x 128 pixels., and the following year BenQ (2352.TT) released the A520, which sported a 1.5” OLED display (128 x 128) and a smaller 96 x 96 display.  To compare that to what is available currently, the Xiaomi (1810.HK) 14 Pro released this month has a 6.73” OLED display that can reproduce 68 billion colors and has a resolution of 3200 x 1440 pixels.
We have been tracking sales of Universal Display’s OLED materials for more than 10 years and while the company announced its first commercial green phosphorescent green emitter material in the summer of 2010, Samsung Display, UDC’s biggest customer did not release a smartphone using both red and green phosphorescent emitters until the Galaxy S4 in April of 2013, almost 3 years later.  We expect Samsung Display had integrated the green emitter into the display stack for some time before the stack was stable enough to be used commercially, and while the OLED industry is far more adept at making stack material changes, we expect there will be a learning curve with blue phosphorescent emitter material when it is made available commercially.
At a seminar yesterday in South Korea, UBI research, a local consultancy, stated that Samsung Display had set a goal of applying blue phosphorescent OLED material to devices in the 2nd half of 2025, rather than in mid-2024 as previously expected.  We believe this is in reference to materials being developed by SDC, and while we assume they are working with UDC on that development, that remains unconfirmed.  UBI went on to state that they believed the current version of SDC’s blue phosphorescent emitter material is not efficient enough to be used as is, although they believe that SDC would be willing to use a more efficient version, even if the lifetime was only 55% of the fluorescent emitter materials it will replace.  Given that color point (deep blue), efficiency, and lifetime are all variables that determine the commercial success of an emitter material, it has been difficult to ‘blend’ the three major parameters to create a commercially viable blue phosphorescent emitter material.
To complicate matters further, the other components of the OLED stack, most of which are developed and produced by other material suppliers, must also work efficiently with the OLED emitter materials, and that combination must be formulated by the panel producer.  UDC and others will develop their blue phosphorescent emitter with host materials, but there are typically at least 4 layers (usually more) of additional materials that create the environment under which the emissive materials work best, so even if a panel producer decides to use a commercial blue phosphorescent emitter, all of the layers in the stack are likely to be redesigned to produce the most efficient stack combination, a time consuming task, and one that involves considerable testing. 
Why Blue?  The quest for a blue phosphorescent emitter material is not a frivolous one, as a proper phosphorescent blue emitter will improve the stack’s power efficiency.  Estimates seem to range for an improvement of between 20% and 35%, although we expect that the actual result will depend on both the blue material specs and the other stack emitters and materials.  Anything that can reduce the power consumption of a mobile device is of immense value to device designers who can add additional hardware or functionality or reduce the size of the battery, while maintaining or improving the overall display specifications. 
Why has it been so hard?  UDC and others have been on the trail of a blue phosphorescent emitter material for almost as long as commercial OLED materials have been around, but like other ‘blue’ structures, such as blue LEDs, the characteristics that create blue light are specific to what are known as ‘high bandgap’ materials.  In an OLED device, ‘holes’ (think: ‘anti-electrons’) are injected into the stack at the Highest Occupied Molecular Level (HOMO), while electrons are injected at the Lowest Unoccupied Molecular Level (LUMO), with the space between those two ‘points’ called the bandgap.  As the world of electronics always strives toward a neutral state, the two ‘migrate’ to the bandgap mid-point and when they pair, they release light energy and cancel each other.  The frequency (color) of that light energy is proportional to the size of the ’gap’ between HUMO and LUMO, with larger gaps creating higher (blue) frequencies and small gaps creating lower (red) frequencies.
Unfortunately, the larger the bandgap, the more unstable the materials tend to be, which means they have short lifetimes, just as in nature animals or insects with high metabolic rates tend to have shorter lifetimes than those with slower rates, and this has been a fundamental problem for OLED material scientists.  In theory, a lighter blue should be more stable and have a longer lifetime, but a deep blue is essential to balance the phosphorescent red and green already being used in RGB OLED displays, so the quest to find a material with a large bandgap with a stable structure continues.  Eventually a material will be found that meets the necessary criteria, but once it becomes commercialized, it will take time to find its way into OLED stack, just the way green phosphorescent emitter material did, along with the more predictable issues surrounding cost, availability, and IP that overhang current OLED emitter materials.  It’s coming and its going to create a stir when it does, but aside from the initial hoopla, blue phosphorescent OLED emitter material is just a part of the OLED stack and will be subject to the same starts and stops as other OLED materials.

We collect lots of data, and some of that data relates to e-paper displays, otherwise known as electrophoretic displays or devices using electrowetting.  The technology behind these displays is simple, based on the movement of ink particles in an oil with an electric charge.  Once the ink particles have been moved, they stay in position, so the display uses no power until the image needs to be changed, making it ideal for situations where power is unavailable or not feasible.  While the average consumer might know e-paper based on the Amazon (AMZN) Kindle, the most popular application for e-paper is electronic shelf labels, which accounts for ~87% of e-paper unit volume.  These devices replace the paper price labels that have been used in stores for years, allowing prices to be changed at will and without any physical movement to create sales on overstocked items, give product information, or warn consumers about pending stockouts.
Signage is also becoming a target application for e-paper, and when compared to LCD displays or physical paper signage, the power saving capabilities of e-paper standout, and looking at the carbon emission impact of 32” paper advertisements, LCD displays, and e-paper on outdoor digital signage is even more impressive.  Here is how they compare, so from an environmental perspective there is not much else to say.  If you are looking to save the planet, e-paper displays are certainly an option.

• 100,000 e-paper billboards that run for 20 hours a day and update ads 20 times per hours for 5 years would reduce CO2 emissions by ~500,000 tons when compared to LCD displays.
• 100,000 e-paper billboards that run for 20 hours a day and update ads 20 times per hour for 5 years would reduce CO2 emissions by 4,000,000 tons when compared to paper displays.

One of the more disconcerting aspects of VR is the fact that you, as an outsider, in the same room with a VR headset wearer, cannot see the wearers eyes, which means you have not visual clues as to where they might be looking, and to a lesser degree, what their full facial expression might be.  While some VR headsets have externally mounted cameras that allow the VR headset wearer to see his or her surroundings, others nearby have no idea where the user’s next move might be or whether they have any idea that someone is in the room with them.  Apple (AAPL) has discovered this quirkiness and has added a feature set to the soon-to-be-released Vision Pro headset that they feel would solve the problem, although we expect not everybody might agree.
According to developer literature for the Vision Pro, when the user first purchases the headset, they go through a procedure similar to a developing an avatar where the user holds the headset in front of their face and takes a series of facial ‘shots’ including a number of expressions.  The system then creates an avatar based on the ‘shots’ and when the user puts the headset on, the avatar is projected on the front faceplate.  This looks, to someone on the outside, as if the users eyes are visible, although it is actually the eyes of the avatar, which, while it has relatively limited resolution, Apple uses some effects to hide the quality of the image.
“EyeSight” as Apple calls it, seems to be unique to the Vision Pro, and will likely be used for other even more unusual effects by developers after the device is in actual circulation.  The question is, is it more disconcerting not to know where the users’ eyes are looking or to see the visual image shown below.  We make the assumption that the system is able to track eye movements with enough speed not to make the avatar’s movements jerky or unnatural, but there is still something a bit creepy about the feature.  We are not sure if the Apple solution is the ultimate one, and we do give Apple credit for identifying the issue and proposing a logical solution, but it still seems a bit disturbing.
Here's the link to the short (50 sec.) avatar set-up video.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1724539857752519028
​