The CEO of Samsung Display (pvt), affiliate of Samsung Electronics (005930.KS), indicated that it will be building a Gen 8 OLED fab in its production complex in Asan, South Korea, designed for the production of IT OLED panels.  As we have noted previously (8/16/21, 06/30/22,5/26/22), the construction of such a facility has been rumored, particularly as SDC has been developing specialized OLED deposition equipment with tool supplier Ulvac (6728.JP) that will help overcome the physical limitations that restrict the use of fine metal masks to Gen 6 OLED fabs.  Fine metal masks are used to pattern OLED emitter materials on rigid or flexible substrates but begin to sag, causing defects, when they are used above Gen 6.  The new process that SDC is developing places the deposition chamber and the masks vertically, rather than horizontally, keeping gravity from deforming the masks.
We expect the fab will be built in the L8 building, where SDC formerly had two large LCD fabs, producing up to 350,000 sheets/month at its peak, or the equivalent of 25.2m 55” LCD TV panels/year.  SDC closed the first line in 2019, sold the equipment to Chinese LCD module producer Shenzhen Efonlong (pvt), and since built the production line for the company’s QD/OLED display products in that location.  While no specific details about the new fab’s capacity were given, the company is expected to begin production on the new line in 2024, which will improve the efficiency of OLED panel production for IT products (monitors and notebooks), which are currently being produced on less efficient Gen 6 OLED fabs at SDC.  This would coincide with Apple’s (AAPL) rumored plans to move the iPad from LCD to OLED displays in that year.
The OLED IT category is small relative to OLED smartphones, watches, and TVs, but represents a less competitive category and rapid growth. Current estimates see OLED monitor revenue growing from $57m last year to over $200m this year, although that includes QD/OLED and OLED notebooks growing almost 40% in sales y/y and over 60% in units.  The chairman also indicated that SDC would be pursuing two forms of micro-displays, micro-OLED and micro-LED, neither of which comes as much of a surprise considering Samsung’s micro-LED commercial products are already available albeit at extremely high prices.  The indication was that the company will be in mass production of micro-displays in the 2024 year along with the Gen 8 OLED IT line, which musts some significant milestones for SDC over the two years.  While SDC management did not indicate the cost of these projects, the Gen 8 fab alone is estimated to cost between $2.3b and $3b, and we would expect that the OLED micro-displays would be produced on silicon, which would entail a dedicated production line. 
All in, these are big projects but necessary for SDC to maintain its leadership role in the RGB OLED space and compete for micro-LED commercialization with Chinese panel producers, who have also been making such investments.  While 2023 will be a year primarily dedicated to more traditional OLED products, which are increasingly influenced by macro factors, 2024 and 2025 will be years in which SDC is able to expand its display product line, particularly with new premium priced display products that will lessen its exposure to competition from Chinese panel producers.  There are still a large number of roadblocks to overcome but it is nice to have the backing of one of the world’s largest CE companies when it comes to taking such chances.

​LG Display is the world’s only supplier of OLED panels for TVs and has set the tone for large panel OLED products, offering WOLED displays from 97” down to 42”, with flexible, rollable and transparent offering across many of those sizes.  LGD’s TV OLED displays are based on technology that uses a substrate coated with yellow/green and blue OLED materials that produce a white light which passes through a color filter that consists of red, green, and blue phosphors that convert the white light to the colors necessary to produce highly color accurate images.  While this differs from smaller OLED displays that pattern red, green, and blue OLED emitters and do not need a color filter, limitations on the size of RGB OLED displays keeps the technologies from overlapping and given LGD’s experience in producing large panel OLED displays, the competition in the large panel space is limited.
Gamers push the display envelope, looking for larger, faster and more accurate displays, and OLED displays for gaming and monitors have become increasingly popular but at these smaller sizes, the choice of OLED technologies becomes more difficult and with Samsung Display’s QD/OLED the choices become even more complicated.  Small panel OLED producers are looking to find ways to bypass the size limitations of RGB OLED displays while LGD is looking to reduce the size of its displays to further feed the gaming market while still using existing OLED resources.  To that end LGD has indicated that it will introduce a 20” OLED display by the end of this year, which we assume will utilize its WOLED technology, while it works toward the commercialization of an RGB OLED process that is feasible for such panel sizes.  Samsung Display and others are looking to also find ways to bypass the RGB size restrictions to feed such demand but those projects are in the development stage, leaving LG Display’s smaller OLED panel size seeing only minor competition from ink-jet printed panels from JOLED (pvt), which seem to be produced in relatively small quantities.
If LGD is able to produce 20” or 21.5” displays under it current WOLED process it would have an efficiency advantage over those OLED producers that use Gen 6 fab lines as LGD’s large panel OLED lines are based on Gen 8.5.  Not only does this give LGD the ability to produce between 35 (21.5”) and 40 (20”) panels on a single substrate vs. 18 and 21 on a Gen 6 line, giving economies of scale, but also increases the substrate efficiency (the used substrate/total substrate size) from 85% to 93%, and while this doesn’t seem like a big advantage, when multiplied by hundreds of thousands or millions of units, it adds up.
LGD has also indicated that it is working with a customer to design a flexible gaming panel with a curvature that can be adjusted by the user.  This would allow a gamer to adapt the OLED display to the needs of particular games, some of which require extreme focus on the center of the display while others need more peripheral viewing, which would be enhanced by a tighter curvature.  LGD was quick to point out that its WOLED displays, which are based on a single substrate, would be able to provide such a function, while SDC’s QD/OLED displays, which are based on two substrates (OLED and quantum dots) would not.
All in, LGD continues to squeeze as much as possible out of its investment in WOLED which has given it the ability to maintain the massive lead it has in large panel OLED display production, and anything that extends those capabilities should be a plus, but we expect as sizes get down to around 20” the competition from small panel OLED producers will become intense, even if they are less efficient, and by the end of 2023 we expect there will be at least some Gen 8.5 RGB OLED capacity that will compete directly with LGD in that panel size category.  Grab the ring as soon as possible as new contenders are waiting in the wings…

Universal Display (OLED) reported 2Q revenue results ($136.6m) that were down 9.2% q/q but up 5.3% y/y and short of consensus of between $149.6m and $151.2m, with OLED material sales of $71.9m, down 17.1% q/q and down 7.2% y/y, while royalty &^ license revenue ($60.3m) increased slightly (0.8%) q/q and was up 25.0% y/y.  OLED material margin declined slightly to 65.2% while overall margin increased from 78.0% to 80.1%.  UDC lowered their full year guidance from a range of $625m to $650m to $600m single point, with a range of $540m to $660m while guiding material margins to the low end of the previous range of 65% to 70% and OP Ex increase also to the low end of the 10% to 15% previous range.  The ratio between material sales and license/royalty revenue is estimated to be 1.3 to 1 as deferred revenue is recognized from contracts that are near EOL.
From a customer standpoint, we believe Samsung Display (pvt) reduced material purchases slightly q/q while LG Display  (LPL) increased, with royalty/license up on increased unit volumes, while BOE (200725.CH) saw a 6.7% drop in combined sales, and China sales down 7.6% q/q but still up 41% y/y.  While macro issues are certainly in play in China, along with COVID lockdowns, we expect overall material and license revenue to continue to grow as Chinese panel producers, particularly BOE, expand their small panel OLED customer base, despite the occasional bumps.  On an overall basis, while we look specifically at quarterly red and green emitter sales, we feel smoothing the numbers across 6 quarters gives a better understanding of material sales growth by filtering out quarterly ordering inconsistencies.  We do note that raw material inventory levels increased substantially in 2Q (see Figure 2 & Figure 3) although the price of iridium, a metal on which UDC’s phosphorescent emitters are based, seems to have stabilized, however given the 3Q release of the new iPhone line, we expect UDC is making sure they have enough raw material to supply Apple’s (AAPL)  three iPhone display suppliers, all of whom are UDC’s largest customers, which is similar to what occurred in 2Q 2020.
Given the obvious macro issues that are facing the CE space, the weakness in UDC’s sales is not surprising and the days of OLED production capacity growth masking macro or seasonality are long gone, but we do note that revenue across the large panel LCD space declined by 17.6% q/q in 2Q, so a decline of 9.2% would seem to imply that overall OLED growth is still able to provide some protection from the full effects of weakening demand and high inventory levels, while the guidance also implies a bit over 8% sales growth for the full year.  While management looks at the current conditions as short-term, with a strong focus on 2024 when a number of planned OLED capacity additions are expected to come on-line, we expect that a weak 2H and 2023 Chinese New Year might slow those plans.  There are considerations as to deposition equipment ordering, which must be done far in advance of actual production to insure delivery schedules, but even those can slip by a quarter or so if things deteriorate further or Chinese finding becomes more difficult.
There is still considerable play in full-year sales for UDC, although we now expect sales of $597m, which implies hefty 4Q y/y revenue growth of 17.5% and a relatively flat 3Q as Apple releases the iPhone 14 family and a variety of smaller volume but higher surface area products are released for the holidays, with the potential for some of the growth to be pulled into 3Q.  We still believe there is growth in the OLED display space but with the higher macro risk level that comes from a more mature infrastructure and exposure to rising costs.  That said, we believe if there is some degree of safety in the display world, it is in the OLED space and as the primary material supplier to the industry UDC has the most exposure..

​Back in 2015 Japan Display (6740.JP), Sony, and Panasonic (6752.JP) all contributed their OLED businesses to the formation of a combined entity known as JOLED (pvt), with Sony retaining some small panel OLED assets.  The venture was funded primarily by INCJ (Innovation Network Corporation of Japan), a partnership between the Japanese government and a number of major Japanese companies.  INCJ provided 75% of the funding with JDI 15%, Panasonic 5% and Sony 5% with the goal of utilizing Panasonic’s ink-jet printing technology and Sony’s OLED R&D to develop IJP OLED displays, with JDI announcing its intention to increase its stake to 50% in 2017, which unfortunately did not occur due to financial issues at JDI, but JOLED was able to raise an additional $400m in 2018 from a group led by automotive component provider Denso (6902.JP).
JOLED was the first display manufacturer to produce commercial displays using IJP and in early 2018 began shipping what were then high resolution medical displays, followed by a 21” monitor panel for ASUS (2357.TT) and a year later began producing IJP OLED panels from a fab in Nomi Japan and in 2020 TCL (000100.CH) took a 10.76% stake ($280m US) in JOLED in order to license the JOLED IJP technology to Chinastar (pvt), TCL’s display affiliate.   Unfortunately the supply contracts that JOLED has been able to secure have not been particularly large, making it difficult for the company to realize the cost benefits afford to IJP relative to other OLED deposition platforms, and while the company supplied the display for LG Electronica (066570.KS) first OLED monitor,  certainly a feather in its cap considering LG’s affiliate LG Display (LPL) is the premier producer of large panel OLED displays, volumes and yields have not been strong and deal with Lexus (LEXUS.IN) fell through after years of development when the company was unable to deliver product that met specifications.
A recent visit from the chairman of TCL and the announcement that Chinastar and JOLED are sharing IP to develop new products in addition to the 65” 8K OLED ink-jet printed TV that was jointly developed, gives some hope that TCL is serious about maintaining JOLED as a partner and could fund them further if necessary, but whether that means an additional stake in JOLED or a takeover of the entire company by TCL, JOLED seems to be in need of one of two things, financial aid or higher volume orders, and while TCL could certainly provide either or both, would that undermine Chinastar’s OLED efforts, which have been oriented toward developing enough expertise in the OLED space to gain entry into the Apple display supply chain.  We would expect some movement either way by the end of this year.

Back in February (02/23/22 & 02/25/22) we noted that Samsung Display had decided to vary the OLED materials it used to produce displays for the Galaxy S22 series of smartphones, using its M10 materials for the lower priced S22 and switching to the newer M11 material set for the Galaxy S22 Plus and the Galaxy S22 Ultra displays.  While the difference to the average customer would likely be almost impossible to notice, the basis for the divergence in OLED material sets is based on cost, particularly the cost of emitter materials, those that actually produce the RGB light that we see.  The red and green emitters used in OLED displays are produced and licensed to display producers by Universal Display (OLED), while the blue fluorescent emitter materials are produced by SFC (112240.KS) and Idemitsu Kosan (5019.JP).
As we have noted in the past, UDC charges for those materials based on long-term contractual agreements that are based on material volumes, with the price/kilogram declining as volumes reach various trigger points until the reach a ‘terminal’ rate that remains the same for the life of the material.  This implies that ‘newer’ material stacks would be more expensive until the necessary higher volumes are reached, while older material stacks would be less expensive.  That said, this would also mean that Samsung would have to dedicate a particular deposition line to a specific Galaxy S series model so as not to have to change deposition tool settings, and that would only happen if overall model volumes remain high enough to justify dedicating a line to that model, as it does with the Galaxy S series products.
It seems that Samsung Display has convinced Apple that such a split process is also a viable cost savings measure for the iPhone 14 displays it will be producing.  Not only will SDC be using an LTPO (Low-temperature poly-Oxide) backplane that will allow for a higher refresh rate without higher power consumption, but will be using a newer (M12) material set for the display stack for the 6.1” iPhone Pro and 6.7” Pro Max and the M11 material stack for the 6.1” iPhone 14 and the new iPhone 14 Max in order to remain price competitive against LG Display and BOE, who will be supplying displays for the iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Max.  While SDC is the primary provider of LTPO displays to Apple for the iPhone 14, the company faces considerable price competition from BOE and LGD for the iPhone 14 LTPS models and while the difference in OLED stacks might seem negligible to most consumers, when multiplied across some 80m units that Samsung is expected to supply, it can help to offset the price effect from the lower margins that BOE is likely to settle for in order to develop its OLED display relationship with Apple.

LG Display (LPL) reported 2Q results of 5.607t won ($4.278b US), down 13.4% q/q and down 19.5% y/y.  Operating income was a loss of 488b won ($372.4m US), the first quarterly operating loss since 2Q 2020.  Gross margins declined from 12.6% in 1Q to 4.9% in 2Q, against 20.8% in 2Q last year as volumes decreased and panel prices declined.  Little in the basic numbers was a surprise although for the first time in the last 4 quarters, the percentage of revenue generated by the production of TV panels increased, although likely as a result of IT panel shipments and prices slowing more rapidly.  On an area basis LG Display saw both shipments and capacity decline, which has been the case since 4Q 2021, with the area utilization rate rising slightly from last quarter’s low of 70.4%.  We note this is not full fab utilization, meaning against the total capacity of the fab, but against the area currently being used.

The company attributed the weakness to soft demand, weak LCD panel prices, and disruptions in the supply chain in China, resulting in lower LCD panel utilization and shipments, although OLED TV shipments were up in the quarter, a ray of hope for OLED emitter supplier Universal Display (OLED) that derives material sales and unit price royalties from LGD.  OLED TV sales were up ~25% y/y in the 1st half, however the company is forecasting that while there will be OLED TV shipment growth in 2H, it will be at a slower pace than in 1H,, likely closer to 13% to 17% as retailers are expected to order more cautiously in 2H.
In that same vein, inventory levels increased in 2Q by 11.6%, which is concerning considering the company is forecasting continued soft demand at both TV set manufacturers and retailers as a result of excessive inventory levels at those points in the supply chain.  The rational, despite the company’s expected further reductions in utilization were based on new model introductions and the potential need for higher inventory levels heading into the holiday build period, although Figure 4 would indicate that such levels are out of line with historic norms, with the company indicating it expects to return to more normal inventory levels by the end of the year.  We expect some of the inventory build in 3Q is related to the company’s display supply contracts with Apple (AAPL) for the upcoming iPhone, but no specifics were given.
Guidance for 3Q was a bit more specific, with area shipments projected to be up between 4% and 6% q/q as IT and OLED shipments recover, and ASPs (Area basis) increase as the share of smartphones and wearables, which carry higher profitability on an area basis, increase in 3Q, but at the same time the company was forecasting IT panel prices to continue to decline and TV panel prices to also continue to decline, but at a more gradual rate as other LCD panel producers continue to lower utilization rates.

As the risk levels for panel manufacturers rises most companies indicate a desire to expand their product lines away from more generic LCD IT and TV panels and to more value-added displays that are both less competitive and carry higher margins, and LGD indicated the same mantra, with a focus on expanding its already market leading automotive display penetration while increasing both its OLED TV penetration rate and expanding what it calls a ‘made to order’ business, which we assume to mean more product co-development with large customers. 
Much of this is the same corporate speak that appears when the macro environment begins to sour, and should be addressed more closely when things are going well, but LG Display, along with Samsung Display (pvt) has been in the camp of winding down its large panel LCD production for the last few years, although at a much slower pace than their rival.  This brought up the question of the company’s plans for that process, with LGD being a bit more open about plans for their LCD large panel business.  The company’s largest production line known as P7 is a Gen 7.5 a-Si LCD line that was built to produce 225,000 sheets/month.  The company has already brought capacity down to 150,000 sheets and plans to reduce that by another 60,000 during 2H and another 30,000 in the 1st half of next year.  The original plan was to end all production by the end of next year but the company has indicated that they will likely accelerate that process now that large panel prices have been declining.
While we understand that LGD has supply contracts with customers that it must fulfill, and certainly does not want to maintain fabs that run at a small portion of stated capacity, we have been surprised as to how long it took for the company to make the decision to accelerate the wind-down process, with the company stating that the fab had been running at high utilization rates, but as of last July (2021) large panel prices began to decline at a rapid pace and it seemed inevitable that the high utilization rates of 1H 2020 were not sustainable, at which point the push to cut large panel exposure should have been made.  The company did indicate that its Gen 8 fab in Guangzhou China will not be closed but will be converted to the production of smaller IT panels, rather than larger TV panels, for which 10% - 15% has already been completed, with the remainder by the end of 2H next year, which will reduce the company’s exposure to large panel production by 40% (their number).  Other company fabs in Korea, which are Gen 5 and Gen 6 are already oriented toward IT panel production.  The company indicated that the profitability of its IT panel production declined in 2Q but saw less impact than the overall market due to its focus on high-end products.
While the question was asked about plans for expansion of the company’s OLED TV capacity, no answer was given other than the general reference to the development of new OLED oriented products (including automotive), but more importantly when asked about the on-again off-again negotiations with Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) concerning that company’s purchase of multiple millions of OLED TV panels, management indicated that such negotiations had taken place but there was nothing in progress, followed by the more general comment that the company would negotiate with any major customer ‘as long as they recognized value’, which would seem to indicate that price negotiations between the two did not end well.
The circumstances under which panel producers such as LG Display had to operate in 2Q were difficult, but not unexpected and we are always surprised at how slowly pane producers react to what seemed an inevitable conclusion as to panel prices, both TV and IT, and now that the inevitable has occurred panel producers seem a bit surprised at how rapidly things deteriorated, although few were complaining when pane prices were rising rapidly and hitting unprecedented heights.   Now it seems everyone, LGD included, have gained ‘religion’ and are looking at a more conservative approach to production and longer-term plans.  Of course it is easy to me an arm-chair quarterback but there is one consistency in the CE space and that is history repeats itself, so when things like prices get far out of line with historic norms, the elastic band always snaps back, so we wonder if those being ‘snapped’ really thought things were really at ‘a new normal’ or they just did not want to think about anything other than near-term prospects.  Its actually not that hard to answer.

The smartphone market has been relatively weak this year, with optimistic shipment targets made late last year being trimmed so far this year.  There has been little hope that sales will pick up appreciably, outside of seasonal norms in 3Q and 4Q, other than Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone 14 family release in mid- September, and that could be delayed a bit if there are problems with logistics.  Typically (5 year average) smartphone shipments increase ~1.1% in 2Q and 13.5% in 3Q, and while much of the hard shipment data for 2Q has yet to be published, early estimates are that shipments are expected to decline ~3.0%.  3Q however is more of a crapshoot (non-technical term for statistical anomaly)) as the typical 3Q q/q gain is 13.5%, which, given the macro environment, might be a bit difficult for the industry to meet, especially given the higher than normal inventories plaguing a number of CE product categories.
In the past OLED based smartphones have defied broader growth patterns for the broad smartphone market as share grew, but with OLED smartphone share reaching ~43% last year and continued share growth this year, OLED smartphones are mainstream and face macro challenges similar to those for LCD smartphone displays.  This is made more understandable considering that the competitive nature of the OLED display space continues to increase with Chinese small panel OLED display producers pushing to gain share to prove their worth in the overall display market, as they have done in the large panel LCD space and Chinese rhetoric about how they are challenging the dominance of South Korean small panel OLED producers Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL) with a bent toward the goal of ‘world dominance’.
As we have previously noted, South Korean small panel OLED producers have a number of advantages over Chinese small panel OLED producers, primarily the production experience that comes from 15 years of small panel OLED fab operation and a broad supporting infrastructure, while Chinese players began what would barely be called commercial production 9 years ago.  That said, Chinese small panel OLED producers do have one large advantage, and that is capital, which despite questionable operational profitability (without subsidies), seems to be readily available to OLED producers for expansion and to make up operational shortfalls.  The expansion capital has allowed Chinese small panel OLED producers to add considerable capacity over the years as seen in Figure 2, and without question we expect Chinese small panel OLED producers to eclipse South Korean capacity some time over the next 2 – 3 years.
That said, while the numbers would indicate that Chinese small panel OLED producers can take over the lead position in production capacity from South Korean rivals, there are missing factors in Figure 2, and those are utilization and yield.  Given Samsung Display and LG Display’s long-term small panel OLED production experience, they maintain high yield ratios, and while they vary according to how long a product has been in production and the complexity of the display, we believe South Korean small panel producers maintain higher yields than their Chinese rivals and are therefore able to produce more sophisticated small panel OLED displays.  While such sophisticated displays carry a higher profit margin, the market for same is smaller than that of more generic small panel OLED displays, which theoretically should lead Chinese small panel OLED producers to higher utilization rates and higher unit counts, however this is not the case based on our data, and even with China’s largest OLED producer BOE (200725.CH) becoming part of the Apple iPhone OLED display supply chain, utilization rates at Chinese small panel OLED producers remain low, and given the weakness in the overall smartphone market, we expect relatively low utilization rates to continue into 3Q for most Chinese small panel OLED producers.
We expect composite small panel OLED demand to be up 8.7% q/q, but down 1.8% y/y, with only 4 of 8 smartphone brands (including ‘other’) seeing an increase q/q, with Apple the greatest increase based on the iPhone 14 estimated release dat.   We do expect declines in small panel OLED displays from Huawei (pvt), Oppo (pvt), and Vivo (pvt) in 3Q, which would affect production at Visionox (002387.CH) and Tianma (000050.CH), while any Chinese branded smartphone order reductions at BOE will likely be offset by production for the iPhone 14, for which BOE is expected to produce 5m units.  To put that in perspective BOE has been producing ~15m small panel OLED units on average, for the last 6 quarters, with SDC and LGD expected to produce 60m and 25m respectively, based on a 90m order from Apple, which seems to be the latest estimate.
While we are certainly not denigrating the competitive threat to South Korean small panel OLED suppliers from Chinese suppliers, we point to the fact that even with BOE’s participation in the iPhone 14, Chinese small panel OLED producers have maintained a relatively stable supply share of ~23.6% (6 quarter average including 2Q/3Q forecasts) while South Korean producer share has averaged 76.4% over the same period.  Given our expectations for 23.2% and 76.8% respectively for 3Q, we see little change over the average.  As we noted above, we do expect China’s small panel OLED share to increase as their capacity and experience grows, but we are far more willing to accept that change when factoring in utilization, yield, and profitability and given how rapidly the technology seems to be changing, we expect it will take more than subsidies and capacity for Chinese small panel OLED producers to overtake South Korean suppliers in the near to mid-term.  After that, it’s anybody’s game…
 

​The headlines in a South Korean tech paper indicated that a research firm had discovered that Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) was selling its 65” QD/OLED TV (S95B) at a price $200 below that of its main competitor LG Electronics (066590.KS) 65” W-OLED TV (Model G2), which would imply Samsung is willing to keep this new technology priced as a direct alternative to LG’s OLED TV products, regardless of how LG prices its comparative products.  With the original 65” QD/OLED price of $3,000, Samsung has already reduced the price, which remains at $2,600 on their website and within a few dollars of that more major retailers.  That said, we did find one on-line vendor that was offering the unit for an unusually low price of $2,049 out of Hollywood, Florida, although neither sales nor support lines seem to be working.
While we do expect that Samsung will try to remain competitive with LG’s OLED TV offerings with LG’s G2 series priced at $1,999 (55”) and $2,599 (65”), we were unable to find the offer mentioned in the trade press, although we expect there will be a few ‘door buster’ type sales over the next few months that might get the price a bit below the LG range, but we expect Samsung has built-in some substantial controls as to how the QD/OLED TVs are priced in order not to create unfair competition between vendors.  We believe it is frowned upon for brands to officially lock retailers into a price but we know of a number of instances where large brands have castigated those who beak the ‘suggested’ price points.  We do expect that Samsung will have some room to lower QD/OLED prices as it improves yield, and we would expect the company is still experimenting with how it is going to present the new technology from a pricing standpoint, so there might be a point where Samsung is willing to sell for little or no margin to make sure it sells out the targeted number of units before year end.  We are still watching…

​According to Korea’s ETNews, Apple has confirmed that the rumored OLED iPad will be released in 2024.  Apple and suppliers have been producing prototype of the device to make sure that the OLED displays can scale to while still meeting Apple’s specifications as the OLED iPad, should it be similar in size to the current model, would have a screen with almost 3x the size of an iPhone.  With sales in the 50m to 60m range, a mistake on the company’s first OLED base iPad would be quite expensive and damaging to the company’s reputation and the extra time the company is taking to make sure things are right is similar to how the company worked through the iPad OLED conversion years ago, which was slower than most major smartphone brands and started with one model, eventually expanding to the entire iPhone line.
There is still considerable speculation as to who will be supplying the displays for the OLED iPad with Samsung Display and LG Display in primary contention, with both indicating potential capacity expansion plans geared toward producing larger OLED panels on Gen 8 substrates rather than the more typical Gen 6, which would lead to more efficient processing.  China’s BOE is also angling to make its way further into Apple’s display supply chain, although the company is still behind SDC and LGD in terms of producing acceptable yields on LTPO displays, which have been the backplane technology of choice for Apple’s high-end iPhone models.  With the iPad typically being released in September, BOE and potentially others, will have a bit over a year to supply Apple with additional prototypes and gear up production, but it will be difficult for new fabs to be built and tested in that time, so we expect the first round of OLED iPads will still be produced o Gen 6 lines with the possibility that there will be more than one supplier, even if there is only one OLED iPad model in the 2024 year.
 
 

​Way back in February 2020 we noted that Samsung Display (pvt) had been evaluating ink-jet printing equipment from a number of suppliers for use as part of the development of the company’s QD/OLED process, which has recently become available for TV and monitor panels.  The ink-jet process was expected to be used for depositing quantum dots that convert the blue/green OLED materials to a full RGB pixels, and, as is the case in other OLED manufacturing, to encapsulate the OLED materials to protect them from exposure to damaging air and water vapor.  As the encapsulation process is one where a large swath of raea is covered with organic and inorganic materials, the IJP technology used is less advanced than what is necessary for the more precise placement of quantum dots, which must be precisely registered with the emitting OLED materials and the TFT below.
SDC was evaluating IJP tools from Kateeva (pvt) the leader in encapsulation IJP but chose tools made by SEMES (pvt), a Samsung affiliate, despite what we believe was data that indicated that the Kateeva product was the superior choice.  While we speculated that SDC was helping to bail out SEMES, which was seeing its LCD tool business decline as SDC wound down its large panel LCD production business, at the time we could only cite 2nd hand data.  SDC’s choice caused significant disruptions to Kateeva, who had produced working tools with the hope of recovering pre-order costs from SDC, and the company had to reduce its staff by over 50%, and refocus its attention on potential Chinese customers for its encapsulation IJPs.
It seems that HB Solutions (297890.KS) invested $13.5m in Kateeva earlier this year after it was thought that Samsung Display will be using Kateeva’s ink-jet printers for the potential expansion of its QD/OLED production line, after experiencing problems with the SEMES tools, with Kateeva collateralizing a number of its South Korean patents to secure the loan.    HB Solutions is also said to have purchased rights to additional Kateeva patents in the US, although those might be subject to the preferential rights of another purchaser.  HB Solutions would be the end supplier of the IJP tools to SDC, with Kateeva the actual source of the IJP tools.
As there have been a number of delays in the development of the QD/OLED process by SDC, with questions still remaining about how well the product is being accepted by consumers and parent Samsung Electronics’ (005930.KS) commitment to the QD/OLED product line, the pressure is on Kateeva to secure the hard orders for the equipment to maintain it ownership of its IP.  As we have noted yesterday, Samsun expanded its QD/OLED marketing footprint, and while we are want to take this as a positive sign toward the QD/OLED product line, the macro environment is such that a delay in stepping up production capacity at a 2nd QD/OLED fab could push what we originally though would be an end-of-2Q decision further down the road, putting even more pressure on Kateeva.  Hopefully the long-term picture for QD/OLED at Samsung Display will take precedence and a decision (including Kateeva’s IJP) will be forthcoming, but the heat is on once again at Kateeva.