​We have spent a considerable amount of time in our notes on Samsung Display’s (pvt) ‘new’ Quantum Dot/OLED display technology, with much of that time concerning the technology itself and how it differs from other TV/large panel display technologies, but that technology oriented perspective gives short shrift to the application of that technology in Samsung Electronics’ (005930.KS) first commercial OLED TV offerings since SDC (likely with parent Samsung Electronics) decided that WOLED (OLED with color filter) was not practical for the mass production of TVs back in 2013.  While LG Display (LPL) has developed a production process and market for WOLED displays and flaunted the popularization of OLED TVs in Samsung’s face, Samsung has concentrated on RGB OLED displays, which are limited to sizes below typical TV size range.
As SDC perfected the use of quantum dots as a replacement for the color filter in a large panel setting and developed a production line for same, we begin to look at QD/OLED as a competitive product against a number of other TV display modalities, such as LCD, Mini-LED LCD, Mini-LED LCD with quantum dots, WOLED, and micro-LED, and to that end we have to look at how the sets using QD/OLED are priced.  In fact, while there will be a small segment of the buying public that will buy a QD/OLED TV because it is new, (those who answer surveys with “I am always the first to try new technology”) the ability of the technology and its application to be a viable competitor to other TV display technology is the key to success, no matter how much is spent on marketing, and that will have a great deal to do with how it is priced.
There has been much in the marketing literature for QD/OLED about ‘perceived’ specifications, separate from hard metrics, which leads us to believe that Samsung is ready to do battle with other TV modalities, and is passing through the initial release stage where price is almost irrelevant.  In fact, Samsung itself brought to our attention the fact that its two QD/OLED models have just been put on sale, with the 65” model being discounted from $2,999 to $2,099 for Labor Day, a 30% discount, and the 55” model reduced from $2,199 to $1,699, a 22.7% reduction.  This follows a previous price reduction from $2,999 to $2,599, so the reductions from the initial offering prices are substantially higher.  (See our note of 7/11/22 for details).  Samsung is also offering phone and tablet  trade-ins to be applied to the reduced price, and no-interest financing of the purchase price in 4 installments or monthly over four years (4 year option comes to $43.75 and $35.42 monthly) and delivery in 5 days, or pick-up (Best Buy) in 3 days.  Amazon is a few dollars lower.
All of this comes down to the fact that the competition in the OLED space has now been stepped up, although to pin down where the QD/OLED sets would fall against other 55” and 65” TVs is a task that involves classification by specifications and price across a multitude of TV brands ranging in price (4K) from $250 to ~$3,600.  Given that Samsung Display’s capacity is relatively limited with one fab in production for these displays, the question we ask is why is Samsung competing on price this early in the product cycle?  The obvious answer is to sell more QD/OLED TVs, but with near-term capacity relatively limited, we see this more as a way to bring the technology into the eye of the general public rather than the cognoscenti that have a vested interest in staying close to the TV space. 
Samsung is very good at building momentum behind products where they are the exclusive supplier (flexible OLED, foldables, LTPOP, etc.), but in this case the difference between Samsung’s QD/OLED product and other large panel OLED displays is a bit more subtle, forcing Samsung to more down the price curve a bit faster than they might if there were no other large panel OLED TV competitors.  That said, Mini-LED LCD and QD/Mini-LED TV have given some extra life to the premium TV market and in order to maintain their TV leadership role across the globe, Samsung must continue to broaden its product portfolio.  Adding another category here, at what is becoming a reasonable price point, is a move that will make sure they have appeal to every potential TV buyer, regardless of the price range or quality level.

The display industry is big on numbers, with one of the more important metrics being fab production capacity but a fab’s stated capacity (say 30,000 sheets/month) actually has little to do with what the fab actually produces and represents a theoretical number that is in most cases a maximum.  The most obvious factor that affects actual production vs. stated capacity is yield, which varies widely from product to product, production experience, and equipment performance at various stages of the display production process.  For OLED displays, the production process can be divided into three segments, the first being the production of the TFT (Thin-film transistor) circuitry that triggers the OLED materials to produce light, the second being the deposition of OLED materials on a substrate, and the third being encapsulating the materials and making electrical connections.
We note that TFT production is typically done on a line that is separate from the deposition line, typically run in parallel to the deposition line, and an early point at which actual production capacity begins to fall below that stated maximum is the time it takes to produce the TFT against the time it takes to produce the second step, the deposition of OLED materials.  The TFT process tends to have a shorter end-to-end process time than the deposition line, as it is based on process tools used in semiconductor manufacturing that are widely available, while OLED deposition tools are quite specific to the industry and produced by few equipment vendors, such as Sunic Systems (171090.KS), Canon-Tokki (CAJ), Dai Nippon Printing (7912.JP), and Screen Holdings (7735.JP).  Potential bottlenecks occur when TFT production must wait for the deposition process, reducing overall fab efficiency, although given the three potential TFT types used for OLED displays (LTPS, IGZO, LTPO[1]), each with its on process steps and complexity, TFT process time can vary considerably depending on the product specifications.
There are a number of steps that occur before a substrate gets to the deposition line, including detailed optical inspection, a number of cleaning steps, the coating of a layer of Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) that will become the anode of the OLED stack, and laminating the flexible substrate to a rigid glass sheet to keep it stable during processing.  The substrates are loaded into a robotic system that performs additional cleaning and then moved by another robot to a chamber that deposits HIL (Hole-Injection Layer) materials.  When that process is completed the robot moves the substrate to another chamber where HTL materials (Hole Transport Layer) are deposited, followed by three individual steps where red, green, and blue OLED materials re deposited.  Each of these deposition steps is done through a fine metal mask, essentially a screen that keeps each pixel or sub-pixel spaced correctly.  Following the deposition of the three OLED emitters, the substrate moves to chambers that deposit ETL (Electron Transport Layer) and EIL (Electron Injection Layer) materials.
We note that all of these deposition processes must take place in a non-reactive atmosphere, which is commonly Nitrogen, as exposure to even minute amounts of oxygen or water vapor will erode OLED materials and cause the substrate to be discarded, and a number of processes are done under high vacuum conditions, so there is considerable cycle time for reducing pressure and heating chambers for each step.  Once the substrate has completed these steps it remains in the enclosed atmosphere and is encapsulated either with a sheet of glass sealed with glass frit[2] or through the deposition of alternating layers of transparent organic and inorganic materials.
The deposition system shown in Figure 1 is designed for Gen 2 substrates which are 1.87 ft2, which allows the chambers to be relatively small.  Typical OLED production systems are designed to handle Gen 6 substrates, which are 29.86 ft2, although such substrates are typically processed after being cut in half or in quarters, keeping the chamber size as small as possible.  These systems cost hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the configuration and given the small number of suppliers, lead times are between 9 months and 18 months, so considerable planning is needed to get the equipment to a new line and brought up to production specifications, but more importantly is cycle time, which in the case of the tool below is between 3 to 5 minutes/substrate for a single stack structure of this size, and that does not consider any additional layers that particular producers add to differentiate their product.  Such a system can run almost continuously for ~5 days, at which point chambers must be cleaned and masks replaced, at which point the system has to be restarted, recalibrated, and tested before it is put back in production.
Even this cursory OLED process explanation shows the many points at which the process tact time can get extended, reducing output based on the equipment and process alone, and then comes yield, which is the variable that can be the difference between an OLED fab being profitable or not profitable.  Once the OLED displays come out of the encapsulation process, they are tested.  This is done visually (automated) where physical defects are tagged, electrically, to make sure each sub-pixel is able to turn on and off, and characteristically, where luminance, color point, and uniformity are checked.  Some discrepancies that appear between sub-pixels can be corrected by adjusting electrical values, while others cause the OLED panel to fail and be binned for possible repair.  OLED process engineers look for problems that are causing panels to fail testing procedures, and whether they are ‘one-time’ issues or whether they are recurring, and if they are recurring, is it an problem that is occurring at the same point in each display or more random. 
By assessing the test data engineers can determine the source of the problem and make adjustments quickly in order to maintain acceptable yields, especially at the beginning of a new product run or near the end of a use/clean cycle, and when one looks at an OLED line that is capable of producing 15,000 Gen 6 substrates/month or ~1 55” panel/minute, every 1% drop in yield equals ~$73,000/ month in lost sales[3].  It is therefore incumbent on OLED panel producers to watch and improve yields regardless of product in order to achieve profitability.  But what if you have already improved yields and you are still below the quota needed to supply customers?  Typically panel producers begin planning for a new fab, which is an 18 to 20 month process and costs upwards of $3b, a solution that is acceptable on a long-term basis but does little in the near-term.  That said, Samsung Display (pvt) has come up with another, far less expensive solution that goes a long way toward solving the problem.
Samsung Display has developed a large panel display production process that combines the positive aspects of OLED materials and those of quantum dots.  By using quantum dots to shift the color of blue/green OLED emitters to red and green, they avoid the use of a color filter that reduces the light output of WOLED displays produced by LG Display (LPL).  The process is new and still being refined, even as the company is in production, but SDC’s concern (and that of their customers who are Samsung Electronics (005930.KS), Sony (SNE), Dell (DELL), and MSI (2377.TT)) was that they would not be able to produce enough QD/OLED displays to satisfy customer demand, as they have a single Gen 8 production fab for this new product line.  This was especially onerous when the line first went into production as yields were ~50%, meaning they tossed one panel for every two they produced, but SDC was able to bring that yield up to an acceptable 85% by mid-year.  However bringing yields from 50% to 85% is far easier than bringing it from 85% to 90% and that difference in unit volume would not be enough to fill the product gap they see coming, so SDC is working to change the other variable in their QD/OLED production process, that of tact time.
According to sources in South Korea, Samsung Display has set the goal of increasing output of its QD/OLED line by 30% by the end of the year by reducing bottlenecks that keep tact time high.  This would imply a similar reduction in tact time, not an easy task, but one where SDC has the advantage of being the only producer of QD/OLED and has had more experience with RGB OLED production than any other OLED supplier, including LG Display, who is the only global supplier of WOLED TV panels.  As the WOLED process uses conventional phosphors to filter the white OLED light into primary colors, the process differs from SDC’s large panel QD/OLED process, and from the basic RGB OLED process described above, but Samsung’s expertise and close connection to its OLED equipment suppliers gives them the opportunity to increase volume and sales without building out new capacity in the near-term, albeit a short-term solution. 
We expect that SDC has already made the decisions necessary to begin planning for additional QD/OLED capacity, although this has not been an ideal time to be making such plans, which will likely be implemented in one of the company’s shuttered LCD fabs, but as noted this will take considerable time, so such an interim solution is like adding half of a 15k production line for free and one that likely put SDC upper management and that of parent Samsung Electronics in a happier state of mind, something in short supply across the CE space currently.  Now they have 128 days in which to do it…


[1] LTPS – Low Temperature Poly-silicon
IGZO – Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (aka ‘Oxide’)
LTPO – Low Temperature Poly-silicon Oxide

[2]  Glass frit – a low melting point glass powder mixture that can be used to seal or bond glass to glass or other materials, essentially a glass solder.

[3] Assuming a generously low $160 cash cost

​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…

​As we have noted, Samsung Electronics announced its QD/OLED TV line in March and began taking pre-orders in north America and a number of European countries, with regular sales beginning in April in the US and May for Europe.  Samsung is now expanding sales of the QD/OLED TVs to Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand, with the UAE, Brazil and other Central and South American countries in 3Q, and the rest of Europe by the end of the year.  The QD/OLED sets remain excluded from the Korean market, Samsung’s home territory.  We expect that supplies are still limited, despite the improvement in Samsung Display’s (pvt) QD/OLED yield rate and that Samsung’s heavy marketing of its QD/Mini-LED TV line as its premium TV offering would conflict with the idea of an OLED based TV, which Samsung has not offered and has denigrated in the past.
In our 4/18/22 note we estimated Samsung Display’s unyielded and yielded production for 2022, which we believe will fall to less than the general consensus of just over 1m units.  As this is a small percentage of the ~40m to 50m units Samsung typically sells each year, the marketing conflict remains a difficult one until a decision is made as to whether Samsung Display will expand QD/OLED capacity, which we expect is being decided currently.  While we could take the expansion of sales coverage as a sign that such a decision has been made, we hesitate to make such an assumption as the glass half-empty view would be that current sales have not been high enough to account for the potential production this year.  We ascribe to neither view at this point as shipments for the QD/OLED models have only been in place for a relatively short time, giving limited data to Samsung, especially during a period when TV set demand has been under pressure.  Given the potential investment involved in expanding SDC’s QD/OLED capacity, we expect the decision might be postponed until the end of 3Q or possibly to the end of the year.

There are no shortages of comments on Samsung Display’s (pvt) newest display technology QD/OLED.  We have mentioned it innumerable times and most recently there has been talk of a 2nd generational QD/OLED product that is being worked on that will reduce the thickness of the original QD/OLED display. (The 55” TV produced by Samsung (005930.KS) using the original QD/OLED display technology is 1.6” thick).  There has been some controversy as to some of the characteristics of the QD/Display, which is used in a Sony (SNE) TV and an Alienware (DELL) monitor, but the general feeling is that the display technology, especially in its first iteration, is a step up for OLED and display technology generally and is a viable contender against LG Display’s (LPL) WOLED TV technology.
Potential technical issues aside, which will likely be addressed by SDC in the second or third generation product, parent Samsung Electronics has been supportive concerning the new product offering but has been a bit hesitant on the prospects for the technology during its development and early production.  It was surprising to see that Sony was first to announce the availability of the technology in its TV line (shipping expected next month) but Samsung is now offering almost immediate delivery (1 day) through Best Buy (BBY) and is said to be scheduled to receive .5m QD/OLED panels from SDC this year.  While that is a small number of units compared to Samsung ~50m units shipped last year, it would reflect more the early production stage of the technology and Samsung’s lack of information as to how the new technology will be accepted by consumers.
That said, Samsung Display, who will be the sole source of QD/OLED displays to Samsung, Sony, and Dell, must also be realistic as to how many panels they are able to produce this year, and we look at the most important characteristic of panel production, yield, to give an estimate of the number of panels SDC will be able to produce.  As the SDC QD/OLED fab is configured as a Gen 8.5 15,000 sheet/month line, we have to make a few assumptions before walking through the actual estimates.  First, we assume that the fab was built to accommodate MMG (Multi-mode glass), which allows the lines to mix different size panels on the same Gen 8.5 substrate, however most Gen 8.5 OLED lines process a half sheet at a time.  Using MMG would make it impossible to process a half sheet because of the configuration (3 65” & 2 55” panels/sheet or 3 65” panels & 3 34” panels/sheet), so we did calculations for both MMG and non-MMG configurations.  
We also have to make some assumptions as to how many of each panel size Samsung Display is producing[1], which would be based on consumer demand, which is still an unknown, however we build in a roughly two to one ratio for 65”/55” as the price differential between the two is ~35% and the screen size of the 65” model is ~40% larger, with roughly 15% of production going toward the 34” (monitor) size. 
The most important metric in the calculations is yield, as QD/OLED is a new technology and has a number of process steps that are different than typical OLED display production.  Typically yields are quite low when production begins as tools need to be tuned to mass production levels, however it has been rumored that SDC was having trouble with yield and had been moving into mass production with yields in the 50% range.  We expect this was a reason for parent Samsung Electronics’ reticence about promoting the technology late last year, however a recent internal memo from SDC management to employees indicated that yields are now 75% with a target (timeframe?) of 90%+.  It is rare for any company to publish actual production yield, especially for a new product, but it seems that SDC wanted to encourage the fab staff to have an optimistic view of the potential for the product and the prospects for their continued employment on the project.  This gives us some clarity as to where the production yields are currently, which we build into our model below.  As noted, while we are less sanguine about the use of MMG at this fab, we present both MMG based and non-MMG based estimates.


[1] Available to SCMR LLC clients.

​Based on our estimates Samsung Electronics will take ~85% of SDC’s QD/OLED TV panel production this year, with the remainder going to Sony.  As part of SDC’s 2022 QD/OLED production we expect ~110,000 monitor panels to be produced, but we expect there is some flexibility in that figure.  If SDC were to lower the percentage of capacity dedicated to monitor panels, it would lower the total number of panels produced, but increase the number of 55" and”65”, which would boost the number of TV panels it could offer to Sony.  That said, for SDC to be ultimately successful with its QD/OLED project, the company will have to build new capacity to increase production, which would likely take a year if they were to build in an existing location.  In order to meet the 2023 holiday season they would have to make such a decision by mid-year 2022, which would leave little time for Samsung and Sony to evaluate consumer reaction to the product, which puts SDC in the unenviable position of having to make that decision with relatively little customer data. 
If they decide to expand, equipment suppliers will be pressed to also meet such deadlines, which can complicate such timelines.  All in, QD/OLED, or at least Samsung Display’s version of the technology is just beginning to emerge but there is little time to make educated decisions as to expansion plans or SDC will be limited to current production levels until 2024.  While this would certainly give the technology a chance to mature a bit, other display technologies will also improve and QD/OLED will face a stronger challenge from competitive TV display technologies.  Decisions, decisions… 

Samsung Display’s (pvt) new QD/OLED process for display production is already under fire as a German Magazine has indicated that there is a ‘defect’ that can be seen in the Alienware (DELL)  AW34 monitor display that is the first such monitor to use the new technology.  What is shown below is a thin stripe or fringe of discoloration that appears.  The magazine alleges that the problem is caused by the unusual pixel arrangement used by the QD/OLED display, which has a triangular arrangement of sub-pixels with a green pixel at the top of the triangle and a red and blue sub-pixel at the bottom.  This pattern is said to create more of a ‘fringe’ effect than a square arrangement where the sub-pixels are narrower and allow the eye to combine them more easily and there is less ‘black space’ between the sub-pixels.
Given that there has been no lack of comments about the problem from social media, the issue is certainly subjective, as some find it noticeable enough to be considered a flaw, while others barely notice the issue.  Samsung Display tacitly acknowledged the problem by responding to questions about the sub-pixel configuration as follows, and while some of the response is typical corporate jargon, we expect the speculation to continue until a more definitive review of the issue can be made by less subjective sources, such as Displaymate, who we consider to be the definitive source for display comparison and measurement.
"It is not a typical RGB stripe pixel – but our proprietary structure optimized to enhance the core user experience of color and HDR. We selected this new pixel structure in order to optimize optical characteristics of QD-Display like brightness, color gamut and durability. Each pixel of QD-Display has an individual Red, Green and Blue – 3 primary sub pixels.  Unlike Pentile sub-pixel structure that share the adjacent sub-pixel and compromise on detail and accuracy, QD-Display has 3 (R,G,B) x (3440*1440) sub-pixels. So, QD display does not compromise on the detail and accuracy.  The artifact pointed out also can be seen on conventional LCD and OLED displays using RGB stripe. Similar phenomenon is observed on the sides (Left and Right) side when displaying bright high contrast edge on conventional display products.  Displays with better contrast modulation performance and wider color gamut and greater contrast ratio will accentuate this artifact. Because QD-Display has the widest color gamut, superior contrast ratio and new sub pixel structure, this artifact could be visible."
 
All in, as with any new display technology, there will be issues and subsequent refinements that will help to give consumers the confidence needed to mainstream the product.  In recent CE history, problems with the first foldable smartphones were addressed and rectified by the 2nd generation and the issues mentioned above would more likely be addressed with software, usually an easier fix than hardware.  We have relatively low expectations for QD/OLED this year and expect that Samsung Display has been working to reduce this and other issues that might have seen during qualification trials, so we expect that a fix for this ‘fringe’ issue will be built into the production process for any QD/OLED displays that SDC will be producing later this year, and we note that this issue aside, the reviews concerning the QD/OLED display’s other characteristics have been extremely positive.

Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) has announced pricing for its Quantum Dot/OLED TV models, which are in pre-order mode.  While not all of Samsung’s 2022 TV line pricing has been revealed, the two sets are to be priced at $2,400 for the 55” model and $3,500 for the 65” model, which puts them at the top of Samsung’s 4K TV line in those sizes.  As both are 4K models, they would compare to Samsun’s Mini-LED/QD 90B series (2022) which sell for $2,600 and $1,900 respectively, putting the QD/OLED sets 34.6% and 26.3% more expensive than their closest sets in Samsung’s 2022 YV line.  When compared to LG Electronics’ 4K OLED TV lines (2021 models), using their most expensive models, the Samsung QD/OLED sets are 52.2% and 50.0% more expensive than the OLED sets.  While these are prices set by Samsung on its website, Amazon (AMZN) is offering the 55” model (no delivery date) for $2,197 to Prime™ members with an April 11 release date and delivery between April 15 and April 18.
The table compares Samsung’s QD/OLED TV pricing against similar Samsung Mini-LED/QD TVs, Samsung QD only TVs, and the most and least expensive LG OLED TVs.  We note that LG OLED TV pricing is based on 2021 models.  We note also that there has been some question as to the actual pricing for Samsung’s S95B models as some Samsung representative s are quoting a ‘corrected’ price of $2,200 for the 55” and $3,000 for the 65”.  While this might ultimately prove correct given the Amazon price mentioned above, the official prices on Samsung’s webstore are used below.

​According to Korean trade press Sony (SNE) will be releasing the first commercial TV sets using Samsung Display’s (pvt) QD/OLED technology in June.  The Bravia A95K will come in 55” and 65” models and is expected to sell for $3,000 and $4,000 respectively.  This is a bit unusual in that SDC parent Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) would be thought to have 1st mover advantage with a new technology developed by its affiliate, but there has been considerable back-and-forth between the two over the technology, with Samsung Electronics allegedly delaying the initial release in May, but postponing that date over disagreements concerning panel price and panel allocation. 
The price of the two models, should these numbers prove true, would put the sets at the top of the premium OLED list, at least for 4K TV sets, as pricing for 2022 models from a number of brands have not yet been revealed.  As a new technology, or a new production process, one would expect a price considerably above existing premium TV sets, with both novelty and the high cost of production and low yields the general culprits, and by no means is this an inexpensive TV set.  However, while the process is different from producing WOLED and involves production steps that are new or less typical and therefore require more specialized equipment and more rigorous testing, the price is not unreasonable in our opinion.
While we cannot directly compare other display technologies to QD/OLED until production models are available and evaluated by display testing specialists such as Displaymate, or Rtings, we do note that the price of Samsung’s initial Mini-LED/QD 65” TV model released last May (65” 900A 4K) has declined 26.9% from its original price in less than a year.  Mini-LED/QD technology is considerably different than QD/OLED technology and is based on processes that are more mature, so we would look at such price reductions as a stretch for QD/OLED in its first year, especially as competition will be quite limited and the display single sourced, but a $4,000 starting point is certainly within the realm of retail customer budgets.

While the lack of Samsung Electronics’ (005930.KS) promotion of it’s affiliate Samsung Display’s (pvt) QD/OLED was a story that made tech press headlines,  SDC’s QD/OLED displays did get recognition from Sony (SNE), who will likely be the first to adopt the new technology in a retail oriented TV.  But more of a specialty item was the announcement from Alienware (DELL), the high-end monitor and laptop line from Dell, that they also have adopted the QD/OLED panels from SDC for what would be the first QD/OLED gaming monitor (Model AW3423DW).  While the price has not been established (most speculation is ‘expensive’ to ‘quite expensive’) Alienware did give an actual release date of March 29 for North America and April 5 for UK and Europe, which gives some indication as to where Samsung Display might be in the production ramp timeline.
The panel for this laptop is 34”, one of three sizes (55” & 65”) being produced by SDC, generating a 3440 x 1440 resolution (known as Ultra-Wide QHD), with an aspect ratio of 9:21 and a moderate curve.  The refresh rate is 175Hz, the static contrast ratio is 1,000,000:1 (essentially infinite), and 10 bit color is supported, which means the display can image up to 1.07b colors, not something you would need if you were just posting Facebook (FB) videos, but something video editors or high quality content creators would need to make sure color transitions are smooth.  Luminence is 250 cd/m2, which is typical for monitors, with a peak brightness of 1,000 cd/m2 with 99.3% of the DCI-P3 color space covered.
All in, at least from the specifications, the AW3423DW is a high quality monitor, but the real differentiator here will be how ‘pure’ the colors look to those sitting in front of the monitor.  The use of quantum dots to shift blue or green OLED light to very narrow RED and Green wavelengths should give this monitor very precise color representation, making it ideal for those in the cinema editing business or video production.  The relatively high cost (we assume) will likely limit more typical gamers, but we expect SDC will be working toward bringing the cost down to a point comparable with other high-end monitors as quickly as possible.  High-end gaming monitors can run from ~$500 to over $2,000 and video reference monitor between $2,000 and ~$10,000.

​As we noted yesterday, the announcement of Sony’s (SNE) adoption of Samsung Display’s (pvt) QD/OLED TV panels, a positive for the technology, and the ‘non-announcement’ of same from SDC’s parent Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) was a bit confounding, given the close relationship between the two.  The lack of such an announcement from Samsung prompted questions being posed to the head of Samsung’s DX division at presentations last night, which resulted in a statement that shed some light on the question.  Simply put, it was stated that the quantity of QD/OLED displays available to Samsung was not enough for the company to make such an announcement, meaning that SDC’s yield still remains low, not an unusual circumstance for a new display technology, and something we mentioned as a possibility in a number of previous notes on QD/OLED.  “It (QD/OLED set) will be revealed when the quantity is secured, “was the summary statement.
A bit more confusing was a statement concerning the rumored purchase of regular (WOLED) OLED TV panels from LG Display (LPL) by Samsung to fill out their TV line this year.  Samsung stated that “We are reviewing the possibility”, leaving the deal open to continuing negotiations, but was viewed by some as a denial when paired with the comments on QD/.OLED.   While price has been mentioned as a stumbling block to the negotiations between the two competitors, we expect SDC’s yield improvement timeline is really the gating factor, as Samsung wants to fill the OLED TV set gap with something this year.  If SDC is able to deliver volume, there would be little need for Samsung to purchase LG’s OLED panels, unless they use them for a low-tier OLED TV product and the QD/OLED for the premium OLED offering.  The head of LG Electronics (066570.KS) stated that the company would ‘welcome’ Samsung’s entry into the OLED TV market under the idea that it would serve to expand the OLED TV ecosystem, although LG would ‘maintain its superiority’ even with the new competition…