While China gets much attention in the CE space, being the largest market for many CE products, and Japan represents ~2.5% share of the TV market, trends that appear in the largest markets should be mimicked in smaller markets.  Japan’s TV shipment data has indicated that overall TV shipments have been declining, particularly in 2H of 2021, similar to most regions, while OLED TV shipments continue to grow, despite the overall slowdown.  With OLED TV shipment tracking in 2018 beginning in April ’18, OLED TV share was only 3.8% of total flat panel shipments, rising to 6.8% in 2019, to 8.3% in 2020, and 11.8% in 2021 (excluding December).  While there will likely be negative growth in Japan’s TV market in 2021, OLED TV units and share have been growing.
 

In consumer electronics remote controls have been essential devices since the late 1930’s but wires connecting them to TVs made them a bit less attractive to TV or radio owners until 1939 when Philco came out with the “Mystery Remote Radio Control”, the first wireless device for operating CE devices without wires.  The Philco device was a wooden box with a few components (including a vacuum tube) a battery, an antenna, and a dial that could ‘dial up’ your favorite radio station without you having to get up or trip over wires.  The rather large device enabled the user to raise and lower the volume of the radio, mute the sound entirely, or choose one of a few programmed stations to listen to, along with being able to switch to the radio’s built-in phonograph if the radio stations were not playing something to the user’s liking, all through a telephone-like dialing mechanism. 
TV remotes became more popular with the “Lazy Bones” remote control developed by Zenith (066570.KS) in the early 1050’s, but was still connected to the TV with a wire, and was replaced in 1956 with the Zenith “Space Command”, a device that used ultrasonics to change channels and volume.  As when the unit’s buttons were pushed, they created a clicking sound which the TV receiver’s microphone could identify,, giving rise to the term ‘clicker’ for older remote controls.  However, with the cost of transistors decreasing in the 1960’s remote controls began operating at frequencies above the range of human hearing, although dogs could still hear them and metal banging against glass could also change the channel.
By the 1980’s companies like Jerrold Electronics (COMM) were producing more sophisticated ultrasonic remotes, but most were designed to work with a particular brand of TV or CE device, so in 1985, Steve Wozniak of Apple (AAPL) fame, started a short-lived company CL9, whose objective was to develop a universal remote control.  The CL9 product was a well-designed but expensive device that faced competition from other ‘learning’ remotes that were less sophisticated but simpler.  Unfortunately, while ‘learning’ remotes solved the problem of not having to buy an second remote for every device, they are still difficult to program and complicated to use, so we still wind up with a few remotes that are needed to tell the TV to switch to streaming services that are not included in the TV itself or similar functions. 
All of these devices require making sure the batteries in the remote are up to snuff and replacing batteries is a chore, so last year Samsung (005930.KS) came up with the idea of putting solar cells on its TV remotes, allowing them to charge when in a sunny location, in theory a good idea, but not that practical.  This year Samsung is trying something else.  While leaving the solar cells available to the remote during the day, Samsung has included circuitry that can ‘harvest’ the RF signals coming from devices that produce radio waves, such as your router.  Such micro-harvesting is an area of interest in the IoT world, as many of such devices require only small amounts of power to operate and are located in places that would make battery replacement difficult or dangerous.  By collecting the RF energy that is all around us and converting it to electrical energy, such devices are able to power themselves to a large degree.
4G and 5G spectrum have been shown to be near the efficiency of other forms of energy harvesting, such as temperature gradients or vibrations, which means that cities that are blanketed with such RF signals are a fertile ground for energy harvesting, with a study done almost 10 years ago showing that a broadcasting tower located ~4mi from a collector generated enough energy to power a standard microcontroller.  While the amounts of energy gathered are small, usually measured in micro-watts, they are available 24/7 and are free, so the development of RF energy harvesting antennae and conversion components will allow the harvesting to become more efficient and will be applied to devices that don’t require large amounts of power for operation.  Samsung seems to be trying to present itself in an ‘eco-friendly’ light with their remotes, with the idea of both solar cells and RF energy harvesting being one of the few times where in the short run being eco-friendly is also something that is both convenient and ecologically sound.

​Once again speculation runs wild over the potential purchase of OLED panels by Samsung Electronics.  While the last batch of rumors said it was just a matter of the fine details before an agreement between Samsung Electronics and LG Display (LPL) was signed and roughly 2m panels began to be shipped to Samsung as part of its 2022 premium TV line.  Since Samsung has not mentioned an OLED product in blubs before CES, rumors are now moving away from the sale over a difference in negotiated pricing.  According to local Korean trade press, it seems the two companies have been a bit further apart than previously thought, with LGD offering panels to Samsung at ~$650, while Samsung is offering to buy at ~$550. 
Samsung would certainly be a large customer if such a deal would go through, but even with LGD’s offered price, which is ~10% below the price that LGD sells to its parent LG Electronics, Samsung is looking to undercut LGE’s OLED TV pricing by enough that pure OLED TVs will become an option in their TV line, rather than a competitor to its own QD/OLED, Mini-LED/QD, and Micro-LED TV lines, which all fall into the ‘premium’ category.  With two of those three premium lines already established, Samsung seems to want to use OLED to fill out its LCD/QD line, which is situated below the Mini-LED/QD line.
As LG Display is essentially the only volume producer of large panel OLED displays, the growth is OLED TV set shipments and the increasing number of brands that offer them falls directly to them, and Samsung would be taking a sizeable chunk of their production in 2022 (~20%), which could leave some brands unable to meet their own OLED TV goals.  The question then comes down to profitability for LGD and consequently LG Electronics, who would see less profit from the Samsung order than otherwise.  If LGD is confident that they can sell ~10m OLED TV panels in 2022 without Samsung, it would make sense to hardline the price.  If they lack that confidence and are willing to accept a lower margin, they make the deal. 

​Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) has been a proponent of the embryonic Micro-LED TV market, introducing a retail TV line (The Wall) this year to augment the commercial Micro-LED signage product it sells directly to business customers.  While the commercial product is based on modules, allowing the configuration to be determined by the customer, the retail product is produced as a single unit in a number of sizes, although currently available in only the 110” and 99” sizes, which cost ~$155,000 and $147,000 respectively, with the 99” model not yet in production.  Samsung has been producing less than 20 units each month during 2021, against customer orders, but is expected to produce 200 110” units in January to both supply sets for a number of trade shows early in the year, such as CES, Eurotrade, and FPD China, where the company expects to show the sets to consumers and businesses and (hopefully) take orders.
Samsung has been planning to release 101”, 99”, 89”, and 76” models this year but has delayed production until it better understands how the public will respond to these smaller but still expensive TV sets.  Samsung will be switching from PCB board based LED displays to LTPS (Low temperature Poly-Silicon) TFT backplanes produced on a glass substrate for the newer models, which will allow for the LEDs to be more densely packed, a necessity for the smaller TV sizes.  The modules for Samsung’s commercial Micro-LED modules ranges from 1.68mm to 0.84mm between adjacent LEDs.  Given that the same number of pixels (8.29m pixels for 4K resolution) must be fit in to a 76” set that is 48% smaller than the 110” models, the spacing between each pixel must decrease as well, making it difficult to populate a PCB board.  By producing the TFT structure on a glass substrate, in the same way it is done for LCD and OLED displays, and transferring the micro-LEDs to the glass substrate, such densities can be achieved, albeit still at a high cost.  AU Optronics (2409.TT) is expected to be producing the micro-LED backplanes for Samsung.

​OK, you did it, you bought an 8K TV despite the fact that there is little native 8K content to watch.  The salesman was quite good at describing how ‘smart’ the TV was, taking your mundane 4K content and amping it up to 8K, and he was also convincing with the story that you want to be ready when native 8K content becomes available, so you won’t have to rush out with all of the other luddites to buy an 8K TV.  Of course, he did not indicate that you cannot ‘create’ new image information when viewing a 4K image on an 8K TV, you can only duplicate more of what is already there, so you gain the ability to sit closer to the TV without seeing individual pixels, and little else.
But vindication is coming! Or at least it is for those who have purchased the TCL (000100.CH) Series 6 ROKU (ROKU) 8K TV , a 65” model that sells for ~$2,000, as TCL will soon begin to offer a native 8K subscription streaming service, giving you a break from those YouTube (GOOG) clips that you use to show buddies how cool your 8K TV is.  The content is part of a collection from The Explorers Foundation, an non-profit organization devoted to raising awareness of the challenges and issues associated with the preservation of the planet’s heritage through conservation and research.  This means you will eventually have access to 8K content from such projects as “American Crocodiles in Jamaica”, “Scarlet Macaw in Honduras”, or “Lemurs in Vohimana” (Protected Rainforest in Madagascar).
As big fans of nature content, we are certainly all for such access, even if we are still relegated to 4K, but while those who have actually purchased 8K TVs might have an interest in such content, we expect they are looking for a bit more than nature footage and the infrastructure for native 8K streaming is not available for broadcast.  You will have to be satisfied with those YouTube clips and a few 8K movies that have to be compressed in order to pass them through your fiber and Wi-Fi.  It is still a struggle to justify 8K TV, and will likely remain so through 2022, despite the offerings from CE companies looking to score in the category, so hold on for another year and watch any native 8K you can.  No information on the cost or the date when the 8K service will begin but the Explorer’s app is free.

The big guessing game in the CE space is whether the break in TV panel prices will give TV brands the ability to offer substantial discounts during the holidays and stimulate TV set sales, which have been and are expected to be lackluster.  Component shortages, inventory prices, transportation bottlenecks, and TV panel prices all play into such calculations, and while each brand has their own issues, we took a look at the US CPI (un-seasonally adjusted TV index) and how that relates to actual aggregate TV panel prices to get some understanding of where we are in the cycle, and the possibility for a better than expected holiday season.
The simplest comparison was the CPI TV Index vs. the aggregated price of TV panels since January 2020, as shown in Fig. 1.  As can be seen, the TV CPI index lags the index by about a month, with TV panel prices peaking in July and the TV CPI peaking in August, however the TV CPI did not follow the rising TV panel prices seen in the latter half of 2020.  It was not until the beginning of 2021 that the TV CPI began to track TV panel price increases and while the more recent TV CPI data better reflects the change in TV panel prices that began in September, we expect the TV CPI will take longer to readjust to lower panel prices.   TV panel prices have declined 35.3% from their peak while the TV CPI has declined less than a percent, and while this is not a real comparison as the bases are so far apart, at least from a visual point of view, they seem to be tracking more closely over the last three months than in the last 18 months.
But when it comes to consumers, TV panel prices and the TV CPI are far less relevant than what they see when walking into Best Buy (BBY) or are checking TV prices on Amazon (AMZN).  While underneath the loose budgets that consumers will try to hold to when viewing possible TV or other CE choices lies wage inflation/deflation, a smattering of knowledge, much brand hype, and a desire not to buy something that is overpriced, if something looks like a good bargain, it attracts attention.  In order to see whether TV panel price reductions and TV CPI decreases have made an impact on ‘real’ TV prices, we took a simple survey.  We traced the pricing for the 10 top selling TVs at Best Buy to measure where they currently stand relative to their high and low points.  Since Best Buy does not provide historic data, we used pricing on Amazon to trace pricing, and while this was more often 3rd party pricing, rather than Amazon’s, it does give a reasonable representation of the pricing cycles of these TVs.
Just to clarify the data set, the top ten ‘Best Sellers’ at Best Buy consisted of five Samsung (005930.KS) TVs, two LG (066570.KS) TVs, and three Insignia TVs, which are Best Buy’s house brand.  Of the 10, three were 2021 models, five were 2020 models, and two were 2018 (!) models, with one of the LG models being an OLED TV.  In terms of TV size, there were two 75” and two 65” TVs, with the rest with one each (75”, 58”, 55”, 40”, 32”, 24”), with only two being 4K TVs, five being UHD resolution, and the remaining ones HD.  The average price for the ten models was $585 on Best Buy, although leaving out the OLED TV brings that average down to $450.   Prices on Amazon were typically equal to or higher relative to Best Buy, with the average on Amazon 8.9% above Best Buy, but much of the differences came from the two 70” models, which were 29.2% and 66.3% higher on Amazon, likely because they are in relatively short supply.  
What was most interesting was that while the Amazon prices were down 22.5% from their high points on average and up 17.8% on average from their low points, the current prices of the ten sets on Amazon were 8.9% higher than the current Best Buy prices and the current Best Buy prices were only 0.2% higher than the average lowest price point (historically) on Amazon.  If nothing else, it points to the fact that the ‘best sellers’ at Best Buy are better deals than even the lowest historic prices on Amazon.  While the data proves the point that it is certainly better to shop for bargains on-line, particularly among Best Buy’s ‘top sellers’, than to walk into a store and wander through aisles of TVs with a salesman, it does not give any indication as to how much discounting is being done across the broad spectrum of TV sets sold in the US, despite the ‘previous price’ listed for each set at Best Buy.  We believe those ‘previous prices’ should be ignored, considering some of those sets were over two years old and have seen many short pricing peaks and valleys that had little to do with actual consumer prices. 
We also looked at the 10 most and least expensive models offered at Best Buy, however, most were not available on Amazon and price tracking data was therefore not available but just in passing, the average price of the 10 most expensive TVs at Best Buy was $17,155, with the top of the range set by a Samsung 98” 8K set at $60,000 and the least expensive a Samsung 85” 4K TV at $5,500.  At the other end of the spectrum the 10 lowest priced TV sets at Best Buy averaged $121.30, with the most expensive being a $160 Toshiba 32” TV and the least expensive being an Insignia 19” TV at $80.
All in, it will take a much wider sample to see whether the impact of TV panel price decreases will be able to work their way to consumers by the end of the year.  As set producers built inventory against a fear of continuing component shortages, they built in months of higher cost inventory that still has to be worked through or written off at the end of the year.  With three months of lower cost TV panel inventory, the cost average will come down, but given the multitude of other factors, particularly raw materials, semiconductors, and logistics, we expect much of the effects of TV panel price reductions will be seen in 1Q, making the post-holiday period a more likely place to be looking for real TV bargains.  TV panel producers are already seeing the effects of the price declines and have begun to lower utilization rates, which will continue to pressure y/y comparisons, but the bigger question is whether TV set brands will keep any margin they gain, or pass it on to consumers to move units.  Given the margin issues that have faced TV set brands for much of this year, we expect the former but hope for the latter.

Note:  We are only looking at Samsung’s display, TV, and mobile businesses in this note.
Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) reported 3Q sales of 73.98t won ($63.24b US), up 17.4% q/q and up 10.5% y/y and operating profit of 15.82t won ($13.52b US), up 25.9% q/q and up 28.1% y/y.  The company generated gross margins of 42.0%, the best since 3Q ’18 and operating margins of 21.4%, also the best since 3Q ’18.  On a comparative basis 3Q is typically up 8.9% (5 year avg.) q/q and up 6.1% y/y.

Samsung’s display business, which represented 12.0% of sales, was up 29.0% q/q and up 21.0% y/y, and saw a decline in operating margins from 18.6% in 2Q to 16.8%, as costs increased. TV panel prices declined in the quarter, continuing to generate losses in Samsung Display’s (pvt) large panel display business, but small panel sales were strong as Apple (AAPL) and other customers built inventory toward recent model releases.  Samsung did mention strength in foldables but gave little detail on their contribution to total display results.  Samsung guided for continued growth in the display business in 4Q, again led by small panel OLED displays offsetting losses in the large panel TV business.  There was mention that OLED devices, other than smartphones, would begin to play a bigger part in total OLED sales, although are expectations for real growth in that space are oriented toward 2022 and there was also mention of Samsung’s program to begin production of its new QD/OLED TV product as an offset to its (intentionally) declining TV display business.  There was also mention of component costs and shortages, neither of which are specific to Samsung, as points of concern for both 4Q and 2022. 
On an overall basis Samsung’s display business, which is greatly tilted toward small panel OLED, is better positioned than most, although that was not the case for much of last year and earlier this year.  Samsung Display had been the most aggressive of display producers in reducing its exposure to the large panel TV production space in 2019 and closed or sold much of its large panel production capacity.  As large panel prices rose during 2020, SDC held off closing remaining large panel LCD production at the request of Samsung Electronics, its large customer in that market, but SDC’s overall outlook on generic large panel LCD production has likely changed little, especially with the large panel price reductions seen recently.  SDC hopes to replace the generic large panel LCD business with its soon-to-be-released/announced quantum dot/OLED displays, which will become an integral part of the company’s large panel display business if successful. 
As we have noted in the past, there is significant risk associated with developing a new commercial technology in the display space, but if the product passes muster, it will leverage Samsung’s TV business into a ‘premium’ panel category, something Samsung Display has been missing and will give SDC a display product with which it can use to compete against LG Display’s (LPL) OLED TV panel business.  That said, such a product would generate losses for some time, so we expect no profit contribution from that business until 2024.  While we expect SDC to be successful with QD/OLED, we put more emphasis on SDC’s push to expand its OLED display business into the notebook and monitor space, which began in earnest this year, and see continued expansion in that business as SDC improves its OLED notebook cost structure over the next year.  While OLED notebooks will remain in the ‘premium’ notebook category in 2022, we expect their use in mid-tier notebooks to expand in 2H 2022.

​Samsung’s consumer electronics division (~56% is TV), which is ~19.1% of sales, grew sales 5.2% q/q and 0.1% y/y but operating margins for the division as a whole declined from 7.9% in 2Q to 5.4% in 3Q.  While the TV division margins are not broken out, costs associated with the TV business (components, panel prices, logistics, etc.) were responsible for much of the margin reduction.  However the TV segment itself (10.6% of total company sales) grew 9.1% q/q but declined 5.1% y/y against a strong 3Q last year.  Typical 3Q q/q growth (including last year’s +55.2%) is 13.1%, although excluding 2020 would be a more normal 2.6% q/q increase, so it was still a strong quarter in terms of q/q sales averages with Samsung’s QD TV (not QD/OLED) and other premium products leading the way.
4Q guidance for the TV segment is for growth q/q but down again on a y/y basis as lessening COVID-19 restrictions move consumers away from a sequestered lifestyle.  Guidance for 2022 in the TV segment was less optimistic, with more emphasis on logistical issues slowing TV market growth.  While logistics are certainly an issue, we question whether that is the source of reduced demand, but we do agree with the lower demand outlook for TV sets.  That said, if TV panel prices continue to decline in 2022, while it will hurt LCD panel producers, it would be beneficial for Samsung’s TV business, giving them room for the discounting needed to compete against Chinese competitors. 
Samsung, as are almost all other TV set brands, is hoping that ‘premium’ TV products will offset lower overall set demand, and while the premium market will certainly be the growth driver for the TV set business in 2022, we expect Samsung’s broad range of premium TV products will take considerable shelf space in 2022.  With quantum dot enhanced LCD TV, Mini-LED TV, Ultra-large TVs, and potentially QD/OLED TV offerings, Samsung will certainly give consumers ample choices in the premium category, but competition from Chinese brands such as TCL (000100.CH) and Hisense (600060.CH) in key markets will still be an issue in 2022. 
Samsung will have less of a cost burden to carry than those Chinese brands that have their own TV panel production as large panel prices decline, and will be able to cherry pick the market for the best supply deal, which was the intent back in 2019, but the margin leverage usually gained by TV set manufacturers when panel prices decline could be offset by continued component shortages and logistics costs.  If we had to be somewhere in the TV space in a year when demand is reduced, it would be with either Samsung (more premium product and little large panel LCD production drag) or LG Electronics (066570.KS), given the growth of their OLED TV business in 2022, although LG Display (LPL) still has enough large panel LCD production to see some negative influence from that part of their business next year.  

Samsung IT/Mobile division (38.4% of sales) saw sales up 27.6% q/q, against a weak 2Q, but down 6.8% y/y against last year’s strong 3Q.  The mobile segment itself (37.0% of total sales) grew sales 27.6% q/q but declined 8.3% y/y.  IT/Mobile operating margins declined from 14.3% last quarter to 11.8% in 3Q.  Overall, Samsung’s smartphone shipments grew in the quarter with the introduction of new foldable smartphones and an expanded mid-tier lineup, but increased marketing costs (foldables) squeezed margins a bit.  Guidance for 4Q is for increased smartphone demand with a caveat toward component issues.  2022 guidance was still optimistic, with a focus on growing the foldables line, making it a significant part of its ‘flagship’ Galaxy offerings, which have been weak over the last two product cycles.  Samsung has begun to offer a ‘bespoke’ service for its foldables, customizing devices to customer specifications, which the company hopes will increase consume focus on foldable overall, but the service is too new to gain any insight in whether it will serve to generate additional sales without lower margins.

​Across the board, the segments we look at, Samsung did as well or better than most, and given their size, volumes, and internal capacity, they were able to sidestep at least some of the component and logistical issues facing most in the CE space.  The company still seems optimistic about 4Q but a bit less so for 2022, although we expect they are better positioned overall if 2022 looks more like pre-COVID years.  That said, Samsung’s success in 2022, in the markets we cover, will depend on their ability to differentiate their CE products.  Without that differentiation they will face the same diminishing returns that a slower CE growth environment places on participants.  They have a better shot than most but we expect 2022 will be a more difficult year.  

Each year the lead-in to Black Friday gets extended, with deal ads starting in October and the actual Black Friday (11/26) day itself starting for many retailers on Wednesday, November 25.  Last year many brick & mortar retailers gave workers Black Friday off and closed stores to avoid crowds during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and relied on increased on-line sales to make up the in-store selling day loss.  While we expect there might still be some store closings, on-line shopping has already become so ingrained in our culture, especially in the 25 – 34 year old bracket, that missing the overnight camp-outs in front of Wal-Mart (WMT) will likely not be missed by many.  In fact, a recent survey of 1,000 consumers who plan to shop between September and Cyber-Monday indicated that only 30% of respondents thought that stores should still remain open and have door buster sales, with 39% preferred the stores to stay open but have no door buster sales, while 31% stated that they would prefer the stores to remain closed on Black Friday. 
On a more general basis, an Offers.com (ZD) survey indicated that 20% of shoppers expected to increase spending during the holidays this year while 21% expected to reduce spending, so the overall consumer spending pattern will likely remain on track with recent years.  That said, now that the press has taken up the story on supply chain issues that might affect holiday deliveries, Black Friday early discounting serves the purpose of lengthening the time when orders might be placed, which gives retailers more wiggle room on delivery schedules, so said supply chain issues do lend some legitimacy to an extended holiday season, but at the same time consumers have also become used to those last minute ‘Super Savings Discounts’ that pop-up on peak buying days, which might not look as attractive if discounting has been in place for over a month.  That, coupled with consumer electronics’ inflationary characteristics this year could make it a bit more difficult for consumers to find the bargains they have become used to, especially if there are delays in delivery times.

While it is impossible to get an accurate picture of holiday CE deals across a large swath of products, we look back at one area where we have hard data, Samsung’s (005930.KS) Mini-LED/QD TV line, which we have been tracking since the products were announced in May.  As a reminder, this was the first year Samsung has offered a TV line that was based on Mini-LEDs, which gives us the opportunity to see how effectively Samsung priced the models at the onset, and how those prices have been trending to date, especially as we head into the holiday season.  We check Samsung’s Mini-LED/QD TV prices roughly every two weeks, although when we are contacted by Samsung as to ‘price drops on products you have viewed’, we check to see if there are any unusual pricing movements.
Based on our data, it seems that Samsung has already begun its holiday discounting program, at least for its Mini-LED/QD TV line, as the most recent tally has indicated that prices for much of the line have again reached their lowest point since release in late May.  In fact of the 33 models we track, 29 are at their lowest point since release, while 2 are at their highest (actually unchanged from the initial price) and the top of the Mini-LED/QD line (8K) is now 36.7% below the initial price, dropping over 10% over the last week, while the 4K Mini-LED/QD are down less, but also saw price drops between 2.8% and 8.2%.  Samsung’s quantum dot only sets fared a bit better, down between 0.0% (low-end QD only line) and 4.4% (hi-end QD only). 
While these prices, especially at the high-end of the line are significantly discounted from initial list price, they are also competing with Mini-LED TV price leader TCL (000100.CH), who is on their 3rd Mini-LED/QD iteration, and LG Electronics (066570.KS), who has pricing more comparable to Samsung.  TCL has far less name recognition in the US than either Samsung or LG, but has gained much recognition as a low-cost alternative to premium sets from other major TV brands at retailer Best Buy (BBY).  While feature-to-feature comparisons are difficult, TCL’s Series 6 Mini-LED/QD line directly competes with Samsung’s 4K Mini-LED/QD line and while TCL offers a limited number of comparative models, they are priced far below even Samsung’s lowest tier Mini-LED/QD sets.  TCL has already discounted their Mini-LED TV sets from list, so we would expect less discounting going forward, but with models between 46.2% and 51.9% below Samsung’s comparative pricing, the difference to consumers is obvious and continues to keep Samsung Mini-LED/QD prices under pressure.

We have seen estimates for OLED TV shipments increase this year, increasing from just under 6m units (est. in 2020) to over 6.1m and more recently to 6.5m units, with shipments in 1H more than double last year’s 1H.  There are two reasons for the increase in OLED TV sales this year, the first being LG Display’s (LPL) increased capacity, along with the increased availability of smaller sized (48”) models, which carry a lower price and therefore can increase the overall unit volume.  The second, and most important is the price of OLED TVs, which both in absolute terms and against rival LCD TVs have worked toward increasing overall unit volume.
LG Display continues to increase its OLED TV production efficiency using MMG (Multi-mode glass), a process that allows for the production of multiple size panels on a single sheet of substrate, which can improve substrate usage efficiency by very substantial amounts (see table below). This allows LG Display to reduce OLED panel prices while maintaining margins and allows OLED TV set brands to lower OLED set prices during a period when LCD TV set prices have been rising.  In order to quantify just how much OLED TV prices have moved this year, we looked at all 12 OLED TV models released by LG Electronics (066570.KS) this year and tracked pricing from its initial price through current selling price.  We note that all prices shown are from Amazon (AMZN) and not 3rd party sellers, and excludes a number of LG’s more esoteric OLED products such as its rollable TV.
Of the 12 OLED models, all were at their lowest price points for the year and only one model saw a peak higher than its initial price.  The entire line has seen an average price drop of 27.1% from initial pricing, and a 28.5% from peak pricing.  48” sets saw the biggest decrease, averaging 36.3% from peak, while 83” saw the least, dropping an average of 22.3% from peak, while 55”, 65”, and 77” saw price drops of 26.9%, 30.0%, and 25.7% respectively.  While OLED TVs are still generally more expensive than LCD or quantum dot enhanced LCD TVs, and still fall into the ‘premium TV’ category, they have become far more affordable this year than in the past, especially relative to their biggest competitor, LCD TVs.  We do note that as LCD TV panel prices decline, as they have been doing for the last two months, some of the relative price difference will be eaten away, but given that a considerable amount of high-priced TV panel inventory still exists in production or transport, we expect lower TV prices will take some time to appear in full stead.  In the interim OLED TV will have a good year.

3D TVs have come and gone and VR, well if you don’t mind wearing a set of goggles, it can be effective for those who are not affected by motion sickness and visual disorientation, but there is another variety of 3D that is gaining popularity and does not need glasses, helmets, or anything unusual to view, although you will certainly not be sitting in your living room when watching it.  This form of 3D is becoming popular in China, although certainly not limited geographically, but at the moment its not for home use but rather for advertising, and is very effective at attracting attention.
The technology, loosely called naked eye 3D is based on a combination of hardware and software that is used to create short video advertisements on specialized massive LED displays found in public locations.  The LED displays themselves are huge, usually covering the face and side of a large building, a story or so above the street, but tend to be far denser than the usual ‘Time Square’- like advertising boards in terms of the number of LEDs.  Of course this makes for complex installations and very large numbers of smaller LEDs, making the projects expensive, but the advertising potential for these outdoor displays is quite high.
The technology is not just the hardware, as the image creation itself must be carefully controlled, but the techniques for creating naked eye 3D content are not a complex as one might think.   The most typical way to create depth in a flat image is by the use of occlusion relationships, such as superimposing lines in front and behind two identical images as shown in Fig. 2.  While nothing in the image has actually changed, our brain takes the lines as cues and we perceive the right image as being closer.  Unfortunately superimposing lines across video content is not an effective method for creating 3D content, but there are other ways to produce 3D on a 2D plane.

Bezels, the outer, non-display part of many displays, are considered bad by most consumers.  Everybody wants bezel-less smartphones and TVs that make images look like they are floating in space, but bezels can be used to create 3D images in a 2D world by creating ‘virtual bezels’.  By creating a ‘virtual bezel’, essentially a black frame around a video image, our brains can again be fooled into thinking that images are ‘coming out of the screen’.  Here’s how that works:

Here’ is our tree again in a normal screen view, but if we ‘expand’ that black border, not physically, but as part of the video, we can create the same effect as superimposing lines might have.  Note that using the term bezel might be confusing here, as this is really a visual ‘bezel’ created during editing rather than a physical one, but you can see that by placing objects behind or in front of the ‘virtual bezel’, they can be made to look like they are in front of the display, rather than on a flat plane.

​There are other motion parallax techniques that can be used to enhance the realism of moving images, but as the pixel pitch (distance between each LED pixel) decreases in such displays, the realism increases and by bending the display around the corner of a building, the effect of depth is further increased.  Again these displays are all 2D in that they are flat in the same way a TV screen is flat, but the image does not look flat.  Most of the videos use less than the full screen in order to capitalize on the ‘virtual bezel’, which certainly works best at night, but we have seen compositions where the virtual bezel looked exactly like the side of the building, which made the imagery very effective during the day.  More to come.
Watch the short videos below to see this very unusual effect.
https://youtu.be/rScf4OocI7E
https://youtu.be/nWKtIGVPbyc
https://youtu.be/Gzw5240T6P8