As Samsung Electronics’ (005930.KS) 2025 premium TV line has only been available for ~40 days, we did not expect that prices would have changed from their initial levels, however we expected to see some price pressure on older (2024) models as production wanes for last year’s models and shifts to the 2025 line.  The big question was whether the typical price reductions for the previous year’s Tv set line would be offset by tariff costs.  We cannot answer the question fully yet, but in Samsung’s 2024 4K Mini-LED/QD line, where we would typically expect some price erosion, prices rose by 28.6% over the ~30 day period, as shown in Figure 1, bringing them back to levels seen at the beginning of this year.  Similarly, the entire 2024 4K premium TV set line (includes both Mini-LED/QD and QD only) saw a 20.1% price increase.  The 2024 8K line did not see much of a price change (+1.8%), while the 2024 QD only sets saw a 7% price increase, even as the offerings for about 1/3 of thoses line are no longer available.
Samsung’s 2025 OLED TV set line, which has been available for ~ one month followed a more typical early pattern and saw no price change during the period, however the 2024 OLED line did.  While the high and mid 2024 OLED price tier models saw a modest 2.9% decrease in price, as one might expect, the low-end models saw the opposite, rising 27.9% in less than 30 days.  Typical monthly price moves for most OLED models are +/-1.2% and while there have been bigger monthly moves than the average, this month’s increase was the largest ever for this segment of the line.
There are always a number of factors at work when it comes to pricing, particularly inventory levels, component pricing, FOREX, and consumer demand, but now we have the added factor of tariffs, which seem to change on a moment’s notice.  We cannot pin down the price movements we have seen here to a particular factor, but we expect there will be considerably more volatility in TV set pricing as existing on-shore inventory gets worked down.  As Samsung’s sets are assembled primarily in Mexico, for the time being they are exempt from more recent tariffs, as long as regional (Chinese components) sourcing does not exceed 40%.
This gives Samsung the ability to (if so desired) maintain low pricing while sets from Hisense (600060.CH), and TCL (000100.CH) rise, capturing incremental volume, however it seems that Samsung is moving prices up, despite the exemptions.  While this will be beneficial in the short-term if it is sustained, it will do little for shipment volumes and customer satisfaction.  With Chinese TV set brands competing aggressively for share in all markets, Samsung gains the price advantage for a while.  Whether they choose to use it to regain share is still an open question.

We have noted recently that Sony (SNE) has shown a prototype of a new Mini-LED backlight system that uses colored LEDs instead of the usual white (or blue) LEDs.  The system, which is expected to be commercialized sometime this year, should be able to deliver color purity that would rival OLED (See “Resurrection” (03/24/25) for more details).  However, Chinese TV set brand Hisense (600060.CH) also announced a similar RGB Mini-LED 116” set that would directly compete with Sony and others who are developing the same technology including Samsung (005930.KS), LG Electronics (066570.KS), and TCL (000100.CH).
While RGB backlight technology has the potential to enhance the quality of LCD based TV sets, once again extending the life of LCD as a display technology, there are two questions that must be answered when evaluating whether RGB backlight technology will be a gamechanger, or whether it will be just a marketing gimmick to bring shoppers over to the premium TV set section on the retail floor. 
The first is whether enough TV set buyers will be able to discern enough of a difference between Tv sets using RGB backlights and those using more standard white or blue backlights.  Unfortunately much of the feedback on RGB backlight systems comes from those at shows where such displays are being shown, and most of those viewers are there because they either work in the CE industry or report on it.  This leads to a more biased view of new display technologies and one that is a bit removed from that of the average consumer, so the true test will come when such sets are on the floor at Best Buy (BBY) or WalMart (WMT).
​

The second issue is price.  Most new display technologies, when initially released, carry a large price tag, as in many cases the sets are produced almost by hand until brands are able to develop cost-effective mass production processes.  A good example would be Samsung’s Micro-LED TVs (vastly different from Mini-LED TVs), which when released last June started at $110,000 for an 89” set and climbed to a jaw dropping $150,000 for the 114” set, putting them at the very top of the premium Tv market.  This does not lead to large sales volume but can be used as a banner for the entire premium Tv line.

However, things are different now.  The battle for supremacy in the display and TV markets is no longer a gentlemen’s game, where a civil meeting between rivals might have been held to discuss ways to avoid conflicts.  Now Chinese brands are willing to take that same discussion out to the back alley if they think they can gain share over incumbents, with those battles being waged primarily with product pricing.  It has become ever more difficult for brands that are known for their premium pricing, Sony in particular, to offer a new technology or improvement at such lofty prices, as Chinese CE companies are not only able to quickly match the technology, but are willing to offer it at a far more reasonable price.
​

One might expect Sony, if and when they commercialize their RGB Mini-LED TV, to offer it at a steep premium to other models, especially if it is offered in an extra-large size format. While that is certainly a strong possibility, Chinese brand Hisense has recently announced that it will be releasing its own RGB Mini-LED TV set this month.  What makes that unusual is that Hisense was the first to market with the technology AND at a low-enough initial price that both limits the premium that others might charge and also incorporates it into the largest Mini-LED TV available to retail customers.
We took a quick look at the XXL TV set segment (only sets 100” or larger) to see how the Hisense RGB set pricing compared to other generic XXL Mini-LED sets and here is what we found:

​The Hisense RGB Mini-LED TV is priced (in China) at ~$13,780 US, and we note that it is a 116” model, one inch larger than others on the diagonal (1.64% larger in area), but instead of being offered at a massive premium, like the Samsung Micro-LED 114” model, its price is more comparable to 100” generic Mini-LED backlight models, along with its value on a price- to-area basis.  This will make it more difficult for Sony, Samsung, and others  to introduce their versions at the lofty premiums they might normally use, especially if their sets are smaller than the Hisense model, essentially lowering the price bar before the market has even developed.
Of course, we take into consideration that RGB backlight technology will have a higher cost both in the fact that each backlight ‘pixel’ is comprised of three (RGB) LEDs instead of one, and the driving circuitry for each pixel is now far more complex and costly to produce.  That said, either Hisense has found ways to keep costs low, even during early production, or they are willing to forgo product profitability in order to maintain a share lead over rivals (TCL in China) and in South Korea and Japan.  Sony, Samsung, and LG will now have to find another feature to add to their initial RGB backlight Mini-LED sets when they are released, in order to garner a price premium over Hisense, likely something they were not planning for until recently.

The good news is that LEDs are much smaller, although Sony has yet to give details about LED size, the number of zones, the details of each zone, and the electronics can handle the image processing (AI & ML), but some of the old problems still exist.  The cost will be a very big factor as instead of 5,000 white LEDs, the RGB system would contain 15,000 LEDs (RGB) and a lens, and instead of controlling the brightness of 5,000 white LEDs, the system will have to control the brightness of 15,000 LEDs (5,000 is just an example, we expect there will be more zones as the Hisense set has at least 10,000 zones).  LED uniformity, while certainly better than 20 years ago, gets more difficult to maintain as LEDs get smaller, and as LEDs age, their uniformity also changes, so the sheer number of LEDs needed makes the complexity of building such devices far more onerous and expensive.
So does this mean that Sony is going to let the idea of an RGB LED backlight TV wither on the vine again?  No, we expect it will make it way toward the top of the Sony premium TV line and will compete with other OLED and potentially Micro-LED offerings. Hisense, the first to introduce a Mini-LED TV, will also showcase the technology, but at least for a while it will take its place in the ultra-high quality color world of video editing monitors and those with dollars to spend on the best of the best, while the rest of us palookas have to settle for Mini-LED, OLED, or QD/OLED sets.  If we are wrong and Sony has found a way to produce RGB LED backlight systems for a reasonable price, we will be in line to try one, but with so many potential display technologies on the horizon, time is of the essence. 

Yesterday we spent some time examining the effect of Chinese TV set consumer subsidies, and as part of that note mentioned the substantial growth seen in China for large and ultra-large TV sets.  While we appreciate the desire among Chinese consumers to fill their living rooms with the largest TV set possible, that desire is not always the case in the US and other countries. CNET did a survey last December, polling almost 1,200 respondents with two questions.

• If money were not an issue, what is the largest TV you’d put in your house?
• How much are you willing to spend on your next TV?

The responses to the first question were weighted and calculated against four age groups, Gen Z (13 – 28 yrs.), Millennials (29 – 44), Gen X (45 – 60), and Boomers (61-79), along with an ‘all’ category (red).  Surprisingly, the TV size with the highest response rate overall was 65”, smaller than we might have expected, followed by 75”, both of which were popular with older consumers (45 -79), while Gen X’ers seemed to favor 85” sets considerably more than other age groups.  Millennials stood out in the 100”+ category, but more telling was the “No TV” category, where younger consumers were the most likely not to have a TV at all.
The second question, the more valuable of the two in our view, reflected the current spending ‘potential’ of US consumers.  40% of the consumers surveyed indicated that they were only willing to spend under $500 for a new TV, which, in most cases, rules out the ‘premium’ TV category that includes most OLED and Mini-LED/QD TVs, but does include a number of 75” LCD TVs.  While the overall share of those who will be willing to spend between $500 and $1,000 drops from 40% to 33%, the combined share of those who will be willing to spend up to $1,000 is 73%, leaving only 19% willing to spend above $1,000 and 8% not will to spend anything on a new TV.  Millennials stood out as those most willing to spend over $1,000 (26%), although that was not significantly above the average. 

Based on the data from the survey, we were curious to see if retailers matched their TV set offerings with consumer spending expectations.  Our quick survey of TV set models at Best Buy (BBY), Walmart (WMT), Amazon (AMZN), and Samsung’s (005930.KS) on-line site makes it quite easy to see what customer price point each retailer is trying to appeal to.  Amazon, the volume leader, is close to being as price agnostic as possible, offering roughly the same number of models in each price category, essentially an all-things-to-all-people retail approach.   Best Buy is focused on high-end consumers, with by far, the largest number of model offerings in the over $2,000 category, while Samsung’s offerings are a bit more balanced, although certainly more oriented to the middle and upper price tiers.  Walmart’s approach is most closely aligned with the survey results, with almost 70% of its offerings priced at $1,000 or less, similar to the 73% of survey respondents in that same category, so it seems not only does Walmart know its customer base but would be the logical destination choice for the most number of TV set buyer.

TV set unit volume has been on the decline in China, and, as we have noted, the Chinese government has been subsidizing TV set purchases since August of last year as part of a broader program to stimulate the replacement of older CE products.  The “Swap Old for New” program has a stated purpose of stimulating consumer spending, promoting energy conservation, and improving the quality of life of consumers by upgrading appliances to newer and more technically advanced models, although we believe stimulating consumer spending is the overriding goal.
There is little empirical data as to why TV set volumes have been on the decline in China for the last few years but if the Chinese population is moving closer to the attitudes of westernized countries, they have less time to sit in front of a TV as their lives become more complex.  However, even more of an influence is the availability of other display types, particularly inexpensive smartphones.  US consumers spend 3 hrs. 33 mins. on their phones each day, just a bit below the global average of 3 hrs. 50 mins, and Chinese citizens are getting close at 3 hrs. 19 mins.[1]  With less overall time available and a more convenient solution than TV, it is not surprising that TV set volumes have declined as China’s social development matures.
.


[1] https://explodingtopics.com/blog/smartphone-usage-stats

In fact, TV set sales in China have declined, but have also shifted to larger sets, serving as an entertainment source rather than an information source, with the average TV set size increasing 3.3” in 2024 after a 3.0” increase the year before.  For the first time ever, the unit volume share of 75” TVs was greater than that of 65” TVs.  65” TVs became the leader only two years ago and 85” TVs, which made up 10.9% of unit volume, saw 56.7% y/y unit growth last year.
 

The effectiveness of Chinese consumer subsidies, which are financed through both government budget allocations and the issuance of bonds, can be measured to a degree as they are specific to certain product criteria.  The Chinese government has 5 levels of energy efficiency that are attached to consumer products, with one being the most efficient and 5 the least.  The subsidies only apply to levels 1 and 2 on a sliding scale, and Chinese TV brands found relatively inexpensive ways to move lower efficiency rated Tv models up to levels 1 and 2 to qualify without the expense and time of a full redesign.  By the time the TV set subsidies kicked in, many lower efficiency models had already been upgraded, giving consumers a wide range of choices under the plan.
Since TV set energy efficiency was only a small factor in Chinese consumer’s minds before the subsidy became effective, comparing 1H energy efficient TV set volumes (Pre-Subsidy) against 2H energy efficient TV set volumes (Post-Subsidy) gives clues as to how influential the subsidies were.  As shown below, energy-efficient TVs (level 1 & 2) represented 27.1% of unit volume and 38.1% of sales, however in 2H, after the subsidies had been put in place (August), energy efficient TVs represented 72.3% of unit volume and 80.8% of sales.  To compensate for possible seasonality we show that the y/y increase in units in 1H was 66.3% but was 232.2% in 2H and similarly, sales were up 44.1% y/y in 1H but up 184.5% y/y in 2H.

​The Chinese swap subsidy plan remains in effect in 1Q, although we expect its effect will diminish over time, however Chinese prognosticators expect it to have enough of an impact to grow Chinese TV set shipment 2.1% this year.  While from a macro view, there is certainly a case to be made for TV set shipment growth on the mainland, but our concern is that the 2024 TV set subsidies have ‘stolen’ sales and potential upgraders from 2025, resulting in weaker than expected full year 2025-unit volume.  Sales could increase as the share of larger TVs  continues to grow, against the negative of competitive brand pricing, but growth in unit volume might be harder to find.  Of course there is always the potential for larger subsidies but buying growth through subsidies is expensive way for the Chinese government to show the world that China is back on a growth track.

​Large TV sets bring visuals closer to life size and therefore make them more realistic, and, as LCD display manufacturing matures, the ability of producers to increase screen size continues to grow.  While the average screen size across the broad spectrum of TV sets is only a bit above 50”, LCD panel manufacturing has advanced quite significantly from the mid-1980’s when 9” – 10” LCD TV screens were the standard and 30” demos were the talk of the industry.  We have now reached a point where consumer TV sets are almost life-size, with the largest LCD (Mini-LED/Quantum Dot) TV being 115” on the diagonal[1] , the TCL (000100.CH) 115X955.  This 216 lb. behemoth stands 56.4” high, 101” wide and 2.2” thick, with a screen area of 5,651 in2, enough room to fit 345 iPhone 16’s or four 55” TVs within its confines, with a little room left over.  In human terms, the set’s height is roughly that of a 10-year-old child.
Unfortunately, the production of such a large display is extremely inefficient, utilizing only 62% of a Gen 8.6 substrate and 41% of a Gen 10 substrate, although multi-modal fabs, those that are able to cut more than one size panel per sheet, would be more efficient. Yield is also a big issue, as the sunk cost of a defective panel of this size, even at an early stage in the production process, is extremely high.  That said, this TV set has 20,736 zones in its backlight, allowing precise backlight control for every 0.27 in2 of screen area, along with all the bells and whistles that one would expect in a high-end TV.
This all comes at the exceptionally low price of only $20,000 (or 24 easy payments of $833.34 if you make the purchase with your new Best Buy (BBY)/Visa (V) credit card), unless you are one of those who only wants the latest technology.  In that case there is the Samsung (005930.KS) 114” Micro-LED TV, but that will set you back a mere $150,000 (those 24 easy payments will now be $6,250 each), although both sets are 2024 models if that matters to you.  The real issue here is that if you are willing to accept a slightly smaller TV set size (98” to 100”) and a direct lit (No Mini-LED but with Quantum Dots) backlight, you can grab the Hisense (600060.CH) (100QD7N) 100” TV for $2,000, and if you are willing to go down to 98”, you can save another $200 with the TCL 98Q651G for $1,800.  
So while there is still a very big premium for the top of the TV set size triangle, the fact that the competition between the four LCD panel producers that are currently producing LCD panels 98” or larger is extremely intense, as is the competition between TV set brands for high-end customers, causing the price of these very large TVs to continue to decline.  If one times their purchase around Black Friday or after new model announcements, you too can be the talk of the neighborhood.  Your kids will be popular, you will have friends dropping by every time there is a big game, and only a few of the old-timers will say, “Ah, who needs it?  We had a 10” set in the 50s and we loved it!”


[1] There are larger modular Micro-LED sets but they tend to be custom built.

There are many sources of shipment information for smartphones, PCs, tablets, and other CE devices, but data on TV set shipments is lacking.  Obviously, the data on a brand basis is confidential, but conversations with brands can sometimes pull in nuance that helps to make TV set estimates and forecasting a bit less seat-of-the-pants.  On a general basis TV set shipment data is less accurate than other major CE categories and estimates made by large data collectors is usually well protected from the public eye unless you are a subscriber.  We do see research reports on TV set shipments and sales from a variety of companies that specialize in writing industry specific reports, but they tend to be formulaic and offer little insight or detail into how their data was derived or what it means.
Without being able to subscribe to every service that provides TV set shipment data, we have always collected snippets of information that are part of press releases,  quarterly calls, Ks & Qs, and conversations with suppliers, along with the hard data that is occasionally allowed out into the world of non-paying users.  In particular, we try to collect enough hard quarterly data to compile what we call an ‘aggregated’ estimate for TV set shipments, based on no less than 3 sources (usually more), from which we can derive an average and a deviation to both reduce the effect of outlier estimates (average) and to test the confidence levels of estimates across a quarter (deviation).
Having worked years ago for one such aggregator/consultant, we understand how data on CE products is collected and what goes into formulating the estimates that are so heavily relied upon by the media and businesses.  That said, we also know the non-data influences that go into those estimates, and, depending on the firm and the analysts, the potential intensity of their effect on the results.
 With all of that said, as an adjunct to the hard data that we do collect, we are currently building a model that will take into account not only the hard data, but will try to quantify the influence of a variety of other factors and arrive at a hard near-term estimate and a longer-term directional prediction that takes into consideration some macro factors, and a few litmus tests on certain more emotionally driven factors that are subjective and carry less weight, but do have an influence on results and can help to predict DOT (Direction Over Time).  We note also that we will be using AI, not to perform calculations or for writing assistance, but to help to gather sentiment information.  We hope to have the model function effectively by mid-year and will continue to put together the aggregated data we always have in the interim.
In that regard, we were fortunate to be able to access estimates for TV set shipments from one particular source that includes both historic (from 2016) and forward-looking (2028) TV set shipment estimates, and while we are showing them here, we note that these are single source estimates, not our usual aggregated estimates.  The reason we show them is because they are an updated and complete set for the years 2016 to 2028, essentially 13 years without missing data.  While the totals are most important, the data also breaks down the TV set category between LCD TV and OLED TV, making it easy to visualize the relative size of the OLED share.
Again noting that this is single-source data, it can be seen that TV shipments have been on a general decline since 2020, a rather steep decline that ended in 2024 with a modest increase in TV set shipments, followed by expectations for almost flat shipments for this year and next, and declines into the out years.  TVs are no longer the communication hubs they have been in the past, now competing directly with smartphones, leaving TVs as more of an entertainment function as its preferred venue, which make unit growth difficult outside of larger screen sizes.  In terms of TV set shipments, in either the 2016 – 2024 or the 2016 – 2028 timeframes, the CAGR is negative.  As noted, TV set size has been a positive for the segment with 5.4% growth in TV set area in 2024, although area growth, while positive, is expected to see progressively less growth through 2028.  The area CAGR for the 2016 – 2024 period is 3.8% and is 3.3% for the extended period.
All in, the TV set business now has roots in share growth rather than unit or area growth, and that leads to a highly competitive environment.  AI, a potential draw for smartphones and laptops, is not as visible to consumers with TV sets as it is with other devices that can access generative AI, although AI-based imaging applications are of great benefit to TVs, even if the average consumer has no interaction with their function and notices little difference.  That leaves size and price as the magnets to draw in consumers and there are certainly limits for both, but we do expect the Chinese LCD display machine to keep pushing the average TV set size higher as they squeeze out the costs of 100”+ sets over the next 2 years.  That said, we keep our expectations for shipment growth low over the same period.

Write this down, 98Q80C.  It is the model number of Samsung’s (005930.KS) ‘almost’ released 98” Mini-LED/Quantum Dot 4K TV.  This monster (~4’ high x 7’ wide – you can fit a bit over three 55” TVs in that space!) includes all sorts of technology to enhance the picture regardless of what you might be watching and has sound object tracking that places sounds where they were positioned in the image, using Dolby (DLB) Atmos (hopefully you have the front, left, right, center, and to overhead speakers that Dolby requires).  But what really makes the 98Q80C unusual is the price.
When the 1st Samsung 98” Mini-LED/QD 8K set came out, it sold (in Korea) for $58,450 and the 4K equivalent sold for $35,160.  Last year the 98” 4K set sold (US) for $15,000, but this year, at least for the next 2 days and 18 hours, you can pick up this 28.5 ft2 baby for a mere $7,999…but wait, there’s more!  If you beat the deadline (pre-orders), Samsung will take off $1,000, bringing the price down to $6,999, and if you place the order at one of Samsung’s participating retailers, such as Best Buy (BBY), they will take another $500 off.  Along with the discounts, you get (hurry, only 2 days left!) a free, yes free, Q800C Soundbar ($1,000 value according to Samsung), free, yes free, installation ($120 value), and 0% financing with $0 down, plus Samsung’s Care+ extended coverage (value of $249.99 for this set for 1 year).
But seriously folks, Samsung is pushing this set, at least for the next 2 days, to build its presence in the 80+” TV market, which is expected to grow 24% this year, despite weak overall TV shipments and sales.  Samsung has the #1 position in this ultra-large market (40%+), and while the 80+” market is small in terms of unit volume (~2.8m units this year), the sales dollars and margins make it quite lucrative, even with the perks above.  We are not saying to dip into the kids’ education funds or take out payday loans, but if you were thinking about filling your living room wall with a 98” TV, strike while the iron is hot, the clock is ticking!
►Don’t forget that our TV pricing data suggests that while there might be price peaks and valleys for every TV set, the general trend is down as the number of days from release increases.  If you need it now, take advantage of this early discount.  If you are not in a hurry, new model pricing is typically the highest over the life of the Tv model.

Legal Mumbo-Jumbo - Note: We have absolutely no vested interest in Samsung or any other company mentioned and receive no compensation from any company for mentioning their name or product.  We mention specific models and pricing only as reference and make no judgement on the value of such purchases to consumers.  
​

​As promised, Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) officially announced the price and delivery schedule for one of the two additional sizes of their QD/OLED TV line, the 77” (Model 77S95C) model.  The sets will begin shipments on February 14 if pre-ordered at the advertised price of $4,500, which is slightly higher than the original price of Samsung’s top tier Mini-LED/QD 75” set that it released in March of last year and considerably higher than our early estimate of $3,000[1]  While this price might seem high when compared to the current price of the 2022 55” and 65” QD/OLED sets, which are now selling for $1,450 and $1,800 respectively, we note that the initial price of the 55” and 65” sets, released 326 days ago were 42% and 40% higher.  If we follow that logic, in 342 days (January 1, 2024) the price of the 77” model should be $2,655, or 41% below the initial.
Of course there re a lot of factors that will affect the price reductions for the 77” model, along with further reductions for the 55” and 65” models, and a potential 49” model that has yet to be announced officially, so we use that number only as a guideline that has considerable room for change.  However, it does serve to wait for the initial enthusiasm from “Gotta be the first” buyers to wane, as on an unofficial basis, it took about 46 days for the price of the 55” model to decline by 12.1% on Amazon (AMZN) and was near it current all-time lowest price in a bit under 230 days (End of October 2022). 
One point to consider is that on a per square inch basis, the 77” model sells for $1.78/in2, roughly between the initial price/in2 of the two earlier models, which means Samsung used the earlier models as an initial pricing reference for the 77” model.  With the 55” and the 65” QD/OLED models now selling for $1.12/in2 and $1.00/in2, our $2,655 estimate ($1.05/in2) does not seem outlandish, so if you can wait until the 2023 holiday season to buy the 77” QD/OLED Samsung TV, you should be able to save a substantial amount relative to today’s pre-order purchase price, or you can hope that Samsung announces a lower priced version of the 77” model (Model 77S90C?) later this year as rumors have suggested might be the case.


[1] Note: Our estimate was based on the current prices of the two existing (55” & 65”) models.  Samsung has priced the 77” set at a premium starting price, although we believe it will decline as noted above.

The Tv market is highly competitive to say the least and brand competition pushes brands to offload some TV set design and production to OEMs in order to reduce costs.  TV set ODMs produced ~76.2m sets in 2022, and inclusive of the four brands that produce for their own brands (Changhong (600839.CH), Skyworth (751.HK), Konka (000016.CH), and Hisense (600060.CH)) ODMs actually saw an increase from the 97.2m sets produced by ODMs in 2021, a 3.5% increase, with 76.2m units coming from non-branded ODMs. 
Results for 2022, as indicated in Figure 1 show unit volume ranking and reference y/y growth (blue) or decline (red), and where known, key customers in 2022.  A number of ODMs have strong relationships with a relatively small number of customers, which can magnify the impact to those ODMs depending on yearly brand results.  TPV’s (000727.CH) ‘house brands’, Philips and AOC represented ~40% of unit volume and poor Philips results in Europe, along with Best Buy house brand (Insignia) and Vizio weakness, caused overall shipments to decline by ~4.2% y/y, and while TPV is expected to see Hisense become its largest outside customer this year, 1Q is expected to see a ~20% decline y/y as ODMs face difficult 1H y/y comparisons.  Maojia (pvt), which was acquired by TCL (000100.CH) saw a ~25.8% increase y/y in 2022 as TCL’s aggressive expansion kept utilization higher than most, and BOE VT (200725.CH) saw growth as Xiaomi (1810.HK) its largest customer (~40%) grew its TV business last year.