TV Panel Shipments – The Leading Indicator for Consumer Electronics
TV panel shipments are among the best indicators of the condition of the consumer electronics space.  While there are many CE products, all with their own characteristics, the Tv panel segment is the largest in value and the largest in area.  Full year data on panel shipments for 2025 has yet to be compiled (December data being processed), but looking at the 4 major product categories that fall under the large display panel category, here is how TV panels stacked up in 2024[1]

• TV panel shipments represented 31.1% of total large panel unit shipments
• TV panel shipment value represented 55.4% of total large panel value
• TV panel shipments made up ~73% of total large panel area

This makes TV panels among the most significant indicators in the CE space, particularly as the cost of building both LCD and OLED TV display fabs runs into multiple billions.  These large fabs are designed to run at full capacity and their utilization is a key to the health of not only those companies that produce such panels, but also the health of those both upstream and downstream in the CE space.
The Global Supply Chain – Upstream fabs to Downstream Brands
Examples of large panel LCD producers:

• AU Optronics (2409.TT) - Taiwan
• Innolux (3481.TT)  - Taiwan
• LG Display (LPL) – South Korea
• Samsung Display (pvt) – South Korea
• Sharp (6753.JP) - Japan
• BOE (200725.CH) - China
• Chinastar (pvt) - China
• HKC (248.HK) - China
• CHOT (600707.CH) – China

Examples of Upstream Supplier to large panel LCD producers

• Corning (GLW) – US – Glass substrates/cover
• AGC (5201.JP) – Japan – Glass substrates/cover
• Novatek (3034.TT) – Taiwan - Drivers
• Himax (HIMX) – Taiwan - Drivers
• Nitto Denko (6988.JP) – Japan - Polarizers
• Sumitomo Chemical (4005.JP) – Japan - Polarizers
• Applied Materials (AMAT) – US - Equipment
• Canon Tokki (7751.JP) – Japan - Equipment
• ASML (ASML) – Netherlands - Equipment
• Universal Display (OLED) – US - Materials
• Idemitsu Kosan (5019.JP) – Japan – Materials

Downstream participants are almost every consumer electronics manufacturer or brand including OEMs, ODMs, assemblers and retailers, a vast panoply of well-known brands such as Sony (SNE) and Vizio (WMT) and smaller brands like Insignia (BBY) and Toshiba (6588.JP).  The large panel display industry feeds this vast network of intermediate BTB consumers who purchase displays directly from panel producers or through distributors and incorporate those displays in a wide variety of consumer products.
November 2025 Performance: Cumulative YoY Sales Analysis
While monthly y/y sales comparisons are valuable, we see cumulative sales on a y/y basis as more so given the monthly volatility seen in the large panel LCD display space.  This comparison shows where the current year (2025 in this case) is relative to the cumulative results for 2024 at the same point in time.  In fact, four of the nine large panel LCD producers are in positive territory on a y/y cumulative basis in terms of panel sales value as of December 1, with the monthly leader Chinastar now including the large panel fab it purchased from LG Display in April of 2025, giving it a substantial boost y/y.


[1] Excludes automotive panel shipments

Using the same cumulative y/y metric, we can see that unit shipments for the four large panel product categories have remained positive as of November, which indicates that pricing and utilization were the deciding factors as to which producers have performed better than last year (2024) through November:

• Replacement Cycle - There are two trains of thought when it comes to LCD TV replacement cycles.  From a technical perspective, in most cases the life of the TV is based on the life of the backlight.  Unlike OLED displays, which degrade gradually, LCD backlights tend to be stable, like at or above 95% of original brightness for 5 to7 years of normal usage, typically seeing heat related issues that cause the backlight or power PCBs to fail. 

LCD TV lifetimes are typically considered at ‘end-of-life’ when they reach 70% of their original brightness, after roughly 40,000 hours of use.  This equates to ~18 years, however the fact that TV brands compete on the basis of brightness, TVs designed and built over the last 8 – 10 years are driven ‘harder’ than TVs in the past and that causes them to fail more quickly, according to RTINGS.  This brings down the expected life of the average LCD TV to between 5 and 7 years, according to source consensus, which means that sets purchased during the early part of the COVID pandemic should be needing replacement.  Again, this mantra has been part of LCD TV marketing for years, right along side the sports propaganda, and also has little effect on boosting TV set sales on a yearly basis.

• Size Matters? - Average TV set size is an important factor when it comes to large panel LCD production, but it has little to do with total TV set shipment volume.  From the perspective of area, a 2.5” increase in average TV set size, as is predcted for 2026, using 200 million sets/year equals a 4.95% increase in total area produced, the metric that panel producers are most interested in, yet units shipped is not affected by the change. 

The True Driver for 2026: Macroeconomic Health in the US and China
The primary reason we put relatively little credence in these three reasons for an optimistic view of TV set shipments in 2026 is that we have heard them all before, in almost every year when early projections anticipated a year stronger than the last.  We do expect them all to have some contribution to TV set shipments in 2026, but we believe that the overall driver for TV set shipments in 2026 will be the economy in the US (The largest TV set market) and China (2nd largest), who combined represent 42.4% of the total global TV set market in terms of units.  Current estimates for TV set shipments this year are for ~210 million sets, up ~1.0% y/y, with growth in every region other than China (down between 4% and 5%), so even the optimistic view is for little growth, with Chinese consumer-level subsidies being finished at the end of 2025.
2026 Retail Landscape: Value Brands vs. Tariff Pressures
We believe that while premium TV set models will be the focus during sporting event windows, the average consumer will be more focused on value brands in 2026, especially if we see price increases early in the year as a result of component price increases (memory).  Normally this would be beneficial for Chinese brands like TCL and Hisense, but tariffs still play into pricing, giving Korean and Japanese brands a slight advantage.  TV set inventory levels remain high going into 2026, leaving retailers to focus more on cost-to-carry than building new stock of 2026 models which would set the tone for a modest 1H.  Panel producers in China have a bit of leeway in that they can reduce production during the New Year holiday (Feb 15 – 22) without seeming under pressure to do so, which could help to more closely balance inventory levels to mainland demand.  This fits with the new paradigm for Chinese producers of using utilization rather than price as a balancing tool.
Data Modeling: Correlating GDP to NAICS 334 and IPG 3343N
We track a number of GNP sub-sets to better understand the relationships between TV set panel shipments, TV set shipments and the general economy in the US, particularly the NAICS 334 series (Computer & Electronics Manufacturing) and the more detailed IPG 3343N series, known as the ‘Industrial Production Index for  Audio & Video Equipment Manufacturing’, which tracks the physical volume of output in a number of CE categories, including TV sets.  While it is not the perfect index for TV sets (See index breakdown below) as it incudes a number of other high volume CE products, it is as close as we can come to a viable tracking index for TV sets.
The broad manufacturing sector correlates to GDP at ~0.80, while the 3343 sub-index is more volatile at between 0.65 and 0.75.  This means for every 1% shift in real GDP the IPG 3343N index (shown in chart) swings by 2.5% to 3.5% due to the high elasticity of TV sets, essentially, when the economy is strong consumers look to trade up to premium sets, and when it slows, TV sets are among the first CE products to be deferred.
That said there is at least a 3 to 4 month lag between the IPG 3343N index and GDP, with inventory acting as a buffer between the slowdown in GDP and a similar slowdown in factory level production.  This implies that due to TV set elasticity, should the GDP miss its 2.1% target and falls to 1.5% growth, the effect on TV set shipments would be pronounced, moving from the 1% unit volume gain to a ~1.5% to 2.1% drop in production for the index.  While TVs do not make up the entire index, they will likely see negative growth leading to a slowdown or freeze in shipments

Conclusion: Economic Vitality as the Sole Arbiter of 2026 Growth
The data for 2025 and projections for 2026 suggest that the television industry has reached a point where traditional "marketing narratives" such as the sports cycle, the replacement cycle, and the trend toward larger panel sizes, no longer function as independent drivers of net shipment growth. Instead, these factors have become secondary effects of a much larger force: the macroeconomic health and consumer confidence of the US and China.
Combined, these two nations represent 42.4% of the global TV market. Because the display industry is a capital-intensive business requiring high fab utilization to maintain profitability, the global supply chain is now hyper-sensitized to the economic shifts in these two specific regions:

• The US Economic Outlook: As the largest market, US consumer spending is the industry's primary base. While events like the 2026 World Cup create high-profile promotional windows, they historically result in "pull-forward" purchases rather than organic market expansion. Growth in 2026 will be dictated by US interest rates, inflation, import tariffs, and the "wealth effect" of the broader economy, which determines if a consumer feels comfortable buying a new set, regardless of whether their old one has reached its technical end-of-life.
• China’s Structural Reset: The projected 4% to 5% decline in China for 2026 is a direct result of economic policy. The expiration of government subsidies at the end of 2025 has re-exposed an underlying weakness in domestic demand. Without new fiscal stimulus or a recovery in the property sector to boost consumer confidence, the Chinese market will remain a drag on global TV set unit volumes, forcing Chinese TV brands to export their excess capacity to other markets or reduce utilization.

Ultimately, the "Sports Cycle" and "Replacement Cycle" are internal industry mantras used to justify optimism. However, the reality of 2026 is that the TV set shipment market is no longer "tech-driven" or "event-driven", it is macro-driven. If the economies of the US and China provide the necessary tailwinds, the industry will see its modest 1% growth; if they do not, no amount of sporting events or 85-inch panels will be enough to keep set growth positive.
 
FRED Data Breakdown - Series IPG 3343N
Industrial Production Index for  Audio & Video Equipment Manufacturing - Physical volume of output

• 40% Speakers, Amplifiers for Musical Instruments
• 25% TV Sets, DVRs, Stereo Equipment
• 15% Audio/Video Equipment for Automobiles
• 10% Microphones & Headphones
• 10% Other (Jukeboxes, Consumer video cameras)

We note that one can see how dated the index actually is given the fact that it includes Jukeboxes and consumer video cameras left over from previous generations.
​

Display panel pricing is a pure supply/demand balance between panel buyers, typically CE brands and OEMs, and panel manufacturers who have spent billions building fabs that produce hundreds of thousands of display panels each month.  The display industry has been known for its cycles where prices rise and fall over what is typically a three year period, but as the LCD display industry matures, much of that volatility is being wrung out of the system.   The data in the table confirms this shift toward stability, driven primarily by a strategic pivot among Chinese panel producers who now prioritize profitability over aggressive market-share acquisition. 
Strategic Utilization Management
We believe the transformation is based on a focus change, primarily from Chinese panel producers, who have come to realize that, despite government subsidies, share is less of a factor than it was in the early days of panel production.  In the LCD space China is the dominant producer of large panel displays, and has essentially won the battle for share dominance, but Chinese LCD producers have found funding to be harder to come by in recent years as OLED and now Ai compete for government dollars.  This has increased their focus on profitability and has made them more sensitive to pricing extremes.
As we have noted previously,  Chinese producers are using utilization management to better balance supply and demand in recent years, which is a short-term solution to imbalances that is easier to recover from than price declines.  This has lowered the volatility on a yearly basis and dampened the large pricing swings seen years ago.  That said, LCD large panel pricing is both mercurial and nuanced, with the play between brands and producers a monthly negotiation, with different parameters for each display type and technology variation. 
December Panel Market Performance
In December 2025 large display pricing saw monitor panel pricing remained flat, as expected, while notebook panel pricing declined by 0.4%, within our expectations of down 0.6% to down 0.4%.  TV panels were the exception in December, declining only 0.2% for the month, the low end of our down 0.5% to down 0.2% expectations.  This follows declines of over 2.0% for TV panels in the two previous months. 
Panel producers lowered utilization in November to reduce supply and that seems to have helped to better balance the TV panel space.  However, panel producers are also looking to recover some of the pricing ground they lost in 2025 and are looking to raise prices this month.  TV set brands did not see strength during both the 11/11 holiday in China or Black Friday on a more global basis, leaving inventory at higher than expected levels.  While we believe brands will make some concessions on TV panel price, we expect they will be short-lived as brands face higher memory costs and new tariffs (see below).
Panel Price Changes for 2025:

• TV Panels – down 7.6%
• Notebook Panels – down 2.2%
• Monitor Panels – up 1.2%
• Large Panel Total – Down 4.1%

 
The Outlook for Chinese TV brands
Chinese TV set brands are in a more sensitive position at this juncture as they face competition in the US from mainstream brands that do not have as large a tariff burden as Chinese brands, as the new year changed the tariff picture on TV sets once again.  In January 2026, the trade landscape for television sets is redefined by a "tariff wall" between China and Mexico. While the US and China have recently reached trade arrangements to de-escalate, the total duties on Chinese electronics remain significantly higher than those on Mexican goods.  With Samsung Electronics (005930.KS) and LG Electronics (066570.KS) assembling TV sets primarily in  Mexico, even with Chinese government subsidies, non-Chinese TV set brands have some pricing leverage over Chinese brands, who are typically the most aggressive toward set pricing in the US.
TVs Produced in Mexico (The "Zero-Tariff" Advantage)
Televisions produced in Mexico currently enter the US at a 0% tariff rate under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), but specific rules for TVs in 2026 make it even more complicated..

• Compliance Requirement: To qualify for the 0% rate, the TV must be a "compliant good," meaning it meets specific Rules of Origin, meaning roughly 50% to 60% of the value of the components must be added in Mexico, Canada, or the US.
• Rules of Origin: For TVs, this usually requires that key sub-assemblies (like the screen or motherboard) be produced or undergo significant transformation within North America.  For example, If Samsung imports raw components (like a display panel from Korea) under one HTS code and produces a finished TV in Mexico under a completely different HTS code, this "shift" can count as origin, but Samsung must also prove that a specific percentage of the TV's value was created in North America, meaning using parts that were created here.  As of January 1, 2026, Mexico has implemented its own tariffs of up to 35% - 50% on Chinese components to prevent China from using Mexico as a "pass-through" to avoid US tariffs.

TVs Produced in China
Televisions shipped directly from China face a heavy cumulative burden. While the general (MFN) rate for TVs is technically 3.9%, additional trade actions have layered on top of this:

• Reciprocal Tariffs: Under executive orders issued in 2025, China faces a cumulative tariff rate estimated at 65.4% for certain electronics to "rebalance" trade deficits.
• Section 301: Even after recent deals to avoid further escalation, many Chinese goods remain subject to an aggregate 45% rate from the ongoing trade disputes.
• De Minimis Removal: Previously, small orders under $800 could enter the US duty-free. As of late 2025, this exemption has been eliminated for China, meaning even individual TV shipments are now taxed.

So while non-Chinese TV set brands still have to jump through a few hoops, they have the advantage heading into this year, leaving Chinese brands to decide whether they can or want to compete in the US market this year.  If they decide to lessen their exposure to the US market, volume targets will be reduced and it will be more difficult for panel producers to recapture some of the TV panel pricing that they lost in 2025.
Conclusion: A New Era of Managed Stability
The LCD industry has transitioned from a period of extreme, "cycle-driven" volatility into a mature phase characterized by a more disciplined supply management. The era of 100%+ price swings (as seen in 2014) has been replaced by single-digit annual variances (6.36% in 2025), signaling that Chinese panel producers have successfully shifted their priority from aggressive market-share acquisition to sustained profitability.

• The Shift to "Utilization Management" - The dominant Chinese producers have moved away from "price wars" and toward utilization management. By proactively throttling supply in response to demand dips, rather than slashing prices to keep fabs running at 100%, producers have successfully dampened the "mercurial" price swings of the past. This strategy effectively stabilized TV panel prices in December 2025, even in the face of disappointing holiday sales.
• The Geo-Political "Tariff Wall" - The 2026 trade landscape creates a stark divergence in market competitiveness. The "Mexico Advantage" provides a critical lifeline for brands like Samsung and LG, allowing them to bypass the ~65% tariff burden faced by direct-from-China shipments. However, the recent 2026 crackdown on "pass-through" components in Mexico means that even these brands must now localize high-value manufacturing (like motherboards and logic) to maintain their 0% duty status.
• The Outlook for 2026 - Heading into the new year, the power dynamic is shifting:
  • For Panel Producers: While they ended 2025 with large panel pricing down 4.1% overall, their ability to raise prices in January is capped by high brand inventory levels and rising memory costs.
  • For Chinese TV Brands: Facing a massive tariff disadvantage and drying government subsidies, these brands must decide if they can afford to remain aggressive in the US market.
  • For the Industry: If Chinese set brands pull back from the US to avoid the tariff wall, the resulting volume drop will make it significantly harder for panel manufacturers to regain the pricing ground they lost in 2025.

Final Verdict: The LCD market is no longer a wild frontier of unpredictable pricing. It is now a highly choreographed environment where trade policy and supply-side discipline are more influential than raw manufacturing capacity. For 2026, the competitive edge belongs to those who can master the "Rules of Origin" in North America.

The VR, AR, XR world began in the 1960’s with devices like Morton Heilig’s Telesphere Mask and Ivan Sutherland’s ‘Sword of Damocles’, surprisingly not that far off from VR headsets of only a few years ago.  Since then, the industry has changed radically and has become more concerned with toward creating products that are commercially oriented and serve a broad set of consumers, rather than the earlier focus of creating a new ‘reality’, one that had relatively limited appeal to the average consumer.  While the objective of creating a more realistic virtual environment remains intact, CE brands have begun to better understand the larger CE paradigm and have seemed to come to the following conclusion.
Wearing a large head-mounted display (HMD) is both cumbersome and limits where the user can access the device.  Rather than immersing the user in a completely virtual world, a larger user base of ‘casual’ users that focus more on convenience and ease-of-use is more likely to generate sustainable revenue.  Simply, a device that allows the user to see the both the real world and an adjunctive one together in a non-obtrusive package without Head-Mounted Display constraints, will appeal to a larger group of consumers.  
​

The Niche vs. the Mass Market
While VR is still being developed and refined, the AR world blossomed in 2025 and began to develop into a broad product category while VR is a more niche CE product.  It appeals to gamers and has a number of practical applications in training and maintenance, while AR, even in its relatively simple current form, has a much wider  appeal.  The image of board meetings with gesticulating members wearing VR headsets is now replaced with members wearing smart glasses, able to see accurate facial expressions rather than cartoonish avatars, while viewing either a physical or digital whiteboard. 

​While there are a number of VR, AR, XR devices that have category overlap, the industry timeline has changed over the last year or so.  AI has accelerated that change, but we suspect that this movement toward a more commercially oriented VR, AR, XR product development path was inevitable even without AI    Ai serves as an additional enticement for consumers in addition to the platform’s appeal, and while  VR has always fought against the bulk, weight, and cost of HMD devices, AR smart glasses have made those factors almost immaterial, at least from the user’s perspective, and the ability to use such a device without the obvious constraints of an HMD, puts AR glasses in a new light.
There is a hitch however.  The development path of AR glasses has become more complex as we see two forward paths, and while some might see these two paths as price oriented, we see them as a defining characteristic, whether the device has an internal display or whether it does not. 
Smart glasses without an internal display can have a number of features, with each model and brand having a different combination and price range.  The low end of the range for smart glasses with no display, typically for branded glasses like the Amazon (AMZN) Echo Frames (Gen 3) run from under $200 to over $400 depending on the features and style. 
The Feature List for no-Display Smart Glasses

• Speakers – Typically speakers are built into the frames.  This allows the user to hear both the speakers and ambient sound.  Some smart glasses use external cancelling systems to keep others from hearing
• Microphones – Typically a number of mics that make isolating the users voice from wind and noise more easily accomplished.
• Proximity Detection – This allows media to automatically pause when the user takes off the glasses
• Pairing – This allows the user to remain connected with both a laptop and a smartphone at the same time
• POV Photography & Video – Hands-free photos and video capture (Remember this for later)
• Streaming – Direct streaming to social media platforms
• Privacy Indicator – An external LED that shows others when the camera is in use
• Voice Navigation – Real-time, turn-by-turn audio walking or driving directions
• Real-time Translation – Real-time audio foreign language translation
• Notification Reader – Audio summaries of texts, e-mails, alerts, without checking your phone
• AI – AI is available as an adjunct to a number of functions but the user can access the AI by voice at any time for queries or search.
• Prescription/ Photochromic Lenses – Most smart glasses can be fitted with prescription lenses by an optician.
• Gesture Control – Some smart glasses can be controlled with head gestures

Most important to note is that when the user accesses the camera for photos or video in non-display smart glasses, the only frame of reference the user has is what he/she is looking at, not what is being recorded.  The cameras tend to be mounted  very close to the user’s eye which helps, but without a display you either shoot blind or use your smartphone as a viewfinder to see the image you are shooting or recording.  Newer glasses have ultra-wide cameras, so the camera will capture anything in your optical FOV (Field of View), but again, no visual reference until you play the image or video back on your phone or PC, at which point it is usually too late to reshoot.  Some Android and Apple (AAPL) devices can be paired with a watch, which acts as a small viewfinder to help to center images, but without a display the user has little actual control over image positioning details.
The Display Category
Smart glasses with a display offer the ability to view data and images without the need to access your smartphone.   While VR blocks your view of the outside world, smart glasses allow the user to see the real world directly through the lenses.  Those with displays actually project the digital images onto or into the lens, combining it with the actual image the user sees. The OST (Optical See-Through) sub-category has a typically higher price point, accounting for the cost of the display/projector, waveguides, and associated optics, and typically costs between 2x and 3x the price of the non-display category but provides a much more robust platform.  Pricing ranges from ~$300 to $900, again depending on features and style, with 2026 models about to be announced at CES.
The primary advantage of the display-equipped category is the elimination of "digital guesswork."  In non-display models, a user receiving a notification hears a chime but cannot discern its urgency without a voice readout or checking a phone. In contrast, display-equipped glasses provide instant notification, a discreet text overlay that allows the user to read an incoming message in their peripheral vision while maintaining eye contact in a social or professional setting. This "glanceable" interface reduces the cognitive load of switching focus between a physical task and a handheld screen.
Further, the display transforms several key functions from abstract audio into concrete utility:

• Visual Viewfinder: As noted previously, non-display glasses require "shooting blind." A display provides a real-time viewfinder, allowing the user to frame photos, adjust zoom, and confirm that the camera is capturing the intended subject, essential for high-quality content creation or documentation.
• Contextual Navigation: Instead of listening for "turn right in 200 feet," OST glasses can project 3D directional arrows directly onto the pavement or street in the user’s line of sight. This "heads-up" navigation is significantly safer and more intuitive for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers.
• Visual Translation (Subtitling): While audio translation is useful, it can be intrusive or easily drowned out by ambient noise. Display smart glasses offer real-time subtitling, projecting translated text below the speaker’s face. This allow for a natural conversational flow, as the user can read the translation without breaking eye contact or relying on an earpiece.
• Teleprompter & Productivity: For professionals, the display acts as a hands-free teleprompter for presentations or a "secondary monitor" for checking technical schematics and checklists. This is particularly transformative in industrial and medical fields, where "eyes-on-task" is a safety requirement.

Ultimately, while audio-only glasses provide an audio soundtrack to reality, display-equipped glasses provide a digital overlay that fundamentally changes how a user interacts with their environment, offering independence from the smartphone that audio-only devices cannot yet match.
Lifestyle Integration
As we look toward the 2026 product landscape, the choice between display-equipped and display-less smart glasses is no longer just about a budget.  It is about a philosophy of use. For the user seeking a “digital assistant in the ear” and a high-quality hands-free camera, the display-less category offers a frictionless, socially acceptable entry point that feels like regular eyewear. For those who require visual data, whether for navigation, real-time subtitles, or mobile productivity, the display category provides a more robust, albeit costlier, window into the future of computing. Regardless of the path chosen, the "Sword of Damocles" has finally been unsheathed. By prioritizing convenience over total immersion, the industry has successfully moved AR from a sci-fi curiosity to a cornerstone of the modern CE ecosystem.

Samsung’s Market Dominance and Premium TV Pricing Dynamics (2021–2026)
Samsung (005930.KS) is the largest TV set brand in an industry that ships between 206 million and 225 million sets each year (2020 – 2024), with  Samsung’ holding a yearly TV set share average ranging from 16% to 26.2% over the last 5 years.  We have been tracking Samsung’s premium TV set line since they began offering Mini-LED and OLED TVs (2021 and 2022 respectively) to understand both pricing patterns and the influence of macro events on TV set pricing from the viewpoint of  the consumer rather than from a more technical specification perspective.
2025 points to a reaffirmation of Samsung’s TV set yearly pricing highs and lows, which we show in the table below and more visually in Figure 1.  In order to better compare 2025 pricing trends between TV set product types we as set all prices to a common point in Figure 2 and Figure 3 to show how the sub-sets in each category have performed.

​

Seasonal Pricing Cycles and Regional Market Adjustments for Premium Sets
On a monthly basis Samsung’s Mini-LED 8K and 4K TV sets tracked almost identically through the year, with their highest prices between their late March release and the first discount point in May.  Set prices continued to decline throughout the year.  8K sets faced some challenges in Europe which caused prices to rise but a workaround solved the issue and declines for 8K sets resumed. 
Prime Day (week) typically in early July and July 4th sales mark the first price ‘adjustments’ that brands typically make on TV sets as they enter the slow summer season, with everything leading up to the Black Friday (month), which is characteristically the lowest price point of the year for premium TV sets.  OLED TVs have a similar pattern during the year, although they do not seem to set a low during Black Friday and then recover as most of the other premium TV sets do.  This year they have remained at or below their Black Friday lows.
2026 Outlook: The Impact of DRAM and NAND price increases on TV Margins
In most cases in 2025 the factors putting upward pressure on TV set pricing have been absorbed by panel producers and TV set brands, but 2025 saw a massive increase in DRAM/NAND memory prices and that continues to put pressure on TV set margins and other CE products.  While we believe DRAM/NAND as a percentage of BOM is relatively small, ranging from 1% to 5% (See table below), the massive price increases seen in DRAM DDR4 (over 800% on average) this year have impacted margins far more deeply than anticipated and TV set brands are caught between the need to raise prices to maintain margins or absorb the increases and stay competitive.  The offset, which is the saving grace for TV brands, is that TV panel prices have declined this year (~7.4% on average) and are a much larger (55% - 70%) part of the BOM.  This has allowed entry level TV set pricing to remain relatively consistent as the BOM share of the display is highest in these products, while having a greater impact on premium TV sets, like the Samsung premium TVs we track closely.

The Consumer Electronics Landscape: Memory as a Margin Driver
We expect that premium TV set brands, who are dependent on these higher margin sets, will face a difficult challenge in 2026; whether to raise prices to maintain margins or maintain share against competitors, but we expect that decision will be even more difficult for other CE product brands where the impact of DRAM/NAND pricing is greater.  Smartphones, particularly entry level smartphones, are impacted to the greatest extent among common CE products, with DRAM/NAND making up between 20% and 30% of BOM (See table below), and we know that Samsung is in the process of deciding on whether to raise the price of the upcoming Galaxy S flagship line or maintain it at last year’s levels.
Samsung is in the unique position of being able to balance the loss of margin on smartphones against the increased margins on its DRAM/NAND production across the entire organization, but most other smartphone brands are not as lucky to have in-house memory production.  That said, we expect little change in smartphone pricing in early 2026 as brands compete for share, but if DRAM/NAND pricing continues to rise through 1Q and beyond, we expect the normal price declines seen in most smartphones as they age through their 1st year pricing cycle will be less than usual.  We expect brands will be careful to avoid competing on memory content, likely freezing standard memory sizes for most models, but iwe expect that typical smartphone pricing will be hard to maintain in 2026, even against the increased promotion of AI on mobile devices, as it seems most consumers consider AI readiness, either in applications or as an information tool something that should come with the phone rather than as an additional cost.

​Conclusion: The 2026 Margin Tightrope
The 2025–2026 pricing cycle reveals a fundamental shift in the consumer electronics landscape. While Samsung has successfully maintained its 19-year dominance in the global TV market, the traditional "seasonal decline" model is being challenged by an unprecedented divergence in component costs.
Our data shows that Samsung’s premium TV sets followed a predictable high-to-low trajectory in 2025, with OLEDs notably remaining at or below Black Friday lows into early 2026. This aggressive pricing suggests that in the TV sector, where the display panel represents up to 70% of the BOM, the ~7.4% decline in panel costs has effectively subsidized the skyrocketing price of memory. For entry-level sets, this "panel buffer" is the only reason retail prices have remained stable despite DRAM contract prices surging over 800%.
However, this balancing act is not sustainable for other CE categories. For products like smartphones and laptops, where memory accounts for a massive 15%–30% of the BOM, the "Memory Crisis" has reached a breaking point. Samsung’s recent decision to freeze Galaxy S26 launch prices is a strategic sacrifice of margin to protect market share, a luxury few competitors can afford. Unlike rival brands, Samsung’s unique vertical integration allows it to offset hardware margin losses with the massive profits generated by its own semiconductor division.
Looking ahead to 2026, we expect two distinct market behaviors:

1. In the TV Market: Premium brands will likely engage in "spec-shaving" (freezing RAM/NAND sizes) to maintain the current pricing floor, as consumers remain unwilling to pay more for "unseen" internal specs.
2. In the Broader CE Market: We anticipate a "pricing floor" effect. The traditional mid-year price cuts for smartphones and laptops will likely be shallower than in previous years as brands struggle to recoup elevated component costs.

Ultimately, 2026 will be defined by a battle of attrition. While consumers expect "AI-readiness" as a standard feature, the silicon required to power it has never been more expensive. The brands that survive this cycle with margins intact will be those, like Samsung, who can either absorb the memory surge through vertical integration or successfully pivot the consumer's focus from hardware specs to AI-driven value.

China’s largest panel producer BOE (200725.CH) has been selected by Apple (AAPL) to be the primary supplier of displays for the upcoming iPhone 17e variant that is expected to be released in late February or early March of next year.  As the primary supplier for the iPhone 16e, BOE maintains the top producer status for this iPhone model.  This is vastly different from BOE’s status as a display producer for the rest of the iPhone line (iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max) where BOE has faced production stability issues that have limited its display production for these premium devices.
Apple is expected to order ~8 million 17e units in the 1st half of 2026, a relatively small amount considering the three iPhone 17 series models are forecasted to ship ~89 million units this year (see “Down But Not Out” for details), but understanding the difference between the iPhone 17 series and the iPhone 17e gives a better understanding of BOE’s real position in the Apple supply chain.
Defining the 'e' Series: Apple's Strategy for Mid-Tier Competition
In order to compete with other brands for mid-price tier smartphone customers (particularly Chinese smartphone brands) Apple created the ‘SE’ model designation, which has now become the ‘e’ model series.  The SE/e series is an entry level smartphone that was and is considered ‘budget friendly’ or ‘more affordable’ by the industry.  Rather than make this lower priced model an official part of the iPhone flagship series lineup, Apple separates the ‘e’ series with a number of feature changes to preserve the premium status of the main iPhone line.
Component-Level Differences (The Feature Gap):

• Early release date – Typically announced in 1Q relative to the standard early 4Q release for the three main iPhone models.  This keeps the ‘e’ series from competing directly with the flagship iPhone 17.
• Lower Price - Typically ~25% lower than the base model iPhone 17, putting it in a better position to compete with the slew of mid-tier smartphones that are typically released or announced at the end of 1Q
• Lower Component Cost - The ‘e’ series is thought to incorporate refurbished parts (unconfirmed) and has a single main camera and a relatively small selfie camera, while the iPhone main series has a number of cameras and lens configurations.  There are also some design changes that relative to the flagship series that help to reduce costs.
• GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) Step Down  - The ‘e’ series has the same Apple processor (A18) but with fewer graphics processing cores in the ‘e’.
• Display – Based on the chart below it can be seen that the display on the SE/e series tends to be smaller than the flagship model, and therefore less expensive, with the tendency for Apple to use displays from older flagship models for the SE/e series.  We note also that the backplane (Thin-film transistors that drive the display) are typically configured using LTPS (Low Temperature Poly-Silicon), a lower cost but less flexible technology backplane technology  While the table shows LTPS for the iPhone 16, LTPO (Low Temperature Poly-Oxide), a more versatile technology was used for the higher priced iPhone 16 models.  In 2025 all flagship iPhones used that technology while the iPhone 16e did not.  We expect the same in 2026.  This is a key factor in why BOE is not a major supplier for the flagship line as they have been unable to produce LTPO OLED displays to Apple’s specifications.

​Why Apple Needs BOE (Supply Chain Strategy)
While BOE has yet to become qualified at Apple to produce flagship LTPO  OLED displays, there are a number of reasons why BOE was chosen as the primary supplier for the 17e variant.

• Broaden Supply Chain - Apple has a strong focus on broadening its small panel display supply chain.  Apple’s display specifications are rigorous, along with strict rules concerning display production performance.  This leaves few panel producers able to meet Apple’s high volume needs and an unusual dependence on both Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL) as display suppliers for the flagship iPhone line.
• Largest OLED Producer in China - BOE is the largest small panel OLED producer globally and the largest producer of OLED displays in China.   When it comes to small panel OLED volume on a more generic basis, BOE is the global volume leader, allowing Apple to use their lower-cost model to put pressure on display pricing with its other suppliers and maintain a lower cost structure for entry-level devices.
• OLED Expertise - BOE has considerable expertise in producing LTPS (Low Temperature Poly-Silicon) OLED displays, which are lower cost alternatives to the LTPO displays in the iPhone 17, Pro, and Pro Max.  BOE supplied ~40 million iPhone displays in 2024, primarily for older models and replacement displays for refurbished phones, with few for then current flagship models.

The LTPO Challenge: Why BOE is Excluded from the Flagship iPhone 17 High-End Models
BOE has had difficulties producing LTPO (Low Temperature Poly Oxide) on a consistent basis.  As the three main iPhone 17 series models are expected to use LTPO OLED displays in 2026, BOE has essentially been left out of display production for these models until it is able to prove its ability to maintain consistency in LTPO production, leaving Samsung Display (pvt) and LG Display (LPL) as the primaries.
Conclusion/Summary
China's largest panel producer, BOE, has been selected as the primary display supplier for the upcoming iPhone 17e, a role it maintains from the iPhone 16e. The 'e' series is Apple's entry-level, budget-friendly smartphone, typically released early in the year with a lower price point and featuring older/lower-cost components, such as LTPS (Low-Temperature Poly-Silicon) OLED displays.
BOE's prominent position in the 'e' series supply chain is attributed to its global volume leadership and expertise in producing these LTPS OLED panels, which allows Apple to broaden its supply chain and exert pricing pressure on other vendors.
However, BOE's participation in the higher-volume flagship iPhone line (iPhone 17, 17 Pro, and 17 Pro Max) is limited because these models utilize the more advanced, power-efficient LTPO (Low-Temperature Polycrystalline Oxide) OLED technology. BOE has faced production stability issues and has been unable to consistently produce LTPO displays to meet Apple's rigorous specifications, leaving the supply for the flagship models primarily to Samsung Display and LG Display.

Why We Tested SEO‑Driven Writing
We get innumerable e-mails from companies promising to help us get our notes on to Google’s (GOOG) first few search pages or mentioned in Search Summaries.  Most (Some offer guarantees that automatically lead us to believe they are scams) offer SEO (Search Engine Optimization) software or services that either reformat your content to conform with certain SEO ‘Standards’ or make suggestions that the content producer makes to their content before posting.  These products make or ask the provider to perform changes that make the content more attractive to bots, particularly Google Search bots that are responsible for building and maintaining Google’s massive site and content index on which the company’s algorithms rely when answering a query.
Our thought was to not only see how effective SEO was toward adding traffic but also to see how much of an influence it had on our content creation.  As we post weekly notes to our site (www.scmr-llc.com) once each week, the experiment seemed a logical way to evaluate the effectiveness of SEO on site traffic and content, although the effects can take months to propagate.
Rather than sign up for one of the vast number of SEO fee-based services, we took a simpler approach, we asked Gemini to help us. Initially we wrote our content in the same way as has been the case for years and presented the finished (we thought) note to Gemini with the following prompt:  “Here is a note on XYZ.  Can you make suggestions in order to optimize it for both SEO and GEO?” at which point GEMINI generated a series of very specific suggestions and the rationale behind each.
Typically the first suggestion referenced the note title.  Our titles tend to be simple and imagination capturing (In our opinion)
Examples:

• “Tracking Taylor” – Progress on Semiconductor fabs
• “Panel Price Perturbation” – Tariffs and July display panel pricing issues
• “Beam Me Up Scotty” – 3D Communication system

However, according to Gemini, the bots don’t like such nonsense and want titles that are clearly very specific.  In Gemini’s words “Informal or pithy titles introduce significant friction into the strategic decision-making pipeline. When a title, such as 'Tracking Taylor' or 'Beam Me Up Scotty,' is non-descriptive, it forces the reader—often a senior decision-maker—to expend unnecessary cognitive effort to establish the document's true subject matter and relevance. This requirement for redundant information retrieval (opening the file, skimming the summary) violates the fundamental principle of helpful content.”
It seems that the Google bots want what they call “a high quality heading that provides a descriptive and helpful summary of the content.”  Informal titling fails this test.   Bottom line, the bots want it spelled out, without the creativity that humans might find colorful or distinctive.  In fact, we asked what a proper SEO title might be for Lewis Carroll’s follow-up to “Alice in Wonderland” might be, resulting in the following suggestions (Both headings and bullet points were suggested by GEMINI for “Through the Looking Glass”:
Best All Around

• Through the Looking-Glass Analysis: Chess Symbolism and Themes by Lewis Carroll

High Volume/General Intent

• Through the Looking-Glass Summary & Review: Lewis Carroll's Sequel to Alice in Wonderland

For Purchase or Reference intent

• The Best Quotes from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll (Read the Full Text)

 
How Google’s Crawlers Allocate Crawl Budget
For each site that Google bots visit an algorithm decides which pages to fetch and how often to crawl specific pages (Hourly to not at all) based on metrics like update frequency, estimation of importance.  They decide how deeply to dig into the site, and how much of the crawl budget[1]it is to use for the specific site and its contents.  The decided on site data is then parsed and entered into the Google index.
How Query Intent Changes Rankings
When a query is issued, Google retrieves candidate data from the index and scores each using a large number of relevance and quality signals, and decides what types of additional data to supply (images, news, snippets, etc.) based on the query intent and content type.  The page rank depends on the query itself, with the same page receiving a high rank for one query and a lower one for another.  Our note titled “Panel Pricing Analysis & Forecast: November 2025”

• Query - Panel Pricing Analysis & Forecast: November 2025
  • Our note with that specific title ranked #1 on Google Search
• Query - Panel Pricing Analysis & Forecast
  • Still ranked first
• Query - Panel Pricing
  • Here’s where things go awry.  Since ‘panel’ pricing has lots of meanings (wall paneling, solar panels, electrical panels, etc.) our note fades into oblivion and “Home Depot – Wall Paneling” ranks first

What Google Search Looks For
Aside from technical considerations (spam violations, crawlability, odd site structure) Google Search says it looks for “people first content”, essentially content created primarily to help users rather than to game rankings, and discourages tactics like mass produced, low-value articles and content that is stuffed with keywords, yet every time we asked GEMINI to make SEO optimization suggestions, it suggested making sure keywords were prominent in each paragraph, especially in paragraph headers (sub-titles).  Google has prioritized EEAT (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) as their search mantra, although Gemini almost always suggesting moving data out of paragraphs and into bulleted lists or tables to make it easier for the bots to read, regardless of their necessity.
How SEO Suggestions Affected Our Writing Style and Creativity
Initially we saw the suggested changes as quite bothersome.  Aside from the obsession with titles and headers, the text changes that were suggested oversimplified details and eliminated nuance in favor of emphasizing adjectives that overstated the point.  The example might be a suggestion to change “an unusual 7.3% drop in sales” to “a disastrous 7.3% drop in sales”, essentially adding market ‘zip’ that changed the tenor of the point. 
The most salient change however, was stripping out ‘conversational text to make the content ‘more direct’.  To us, this removed creativity and personality, something a digital entity like a bot or AI does not understand, and we consider that a strong reason to advocate for giving bots and Google Search algorithms the ability to understand how ranking content on its readability from a digital perspective lessens the creative nature of the content, which we believe lessens its value to humans.
One More
Over the few weeks we continued to use GEMINI on each note, we noticed another issue, a human one rather than a digital one.  As GEMINI made phrasing and detail suggestions for SEO for each paragraph, after a few weeks we asked GEMINI to write a better conclusion on a particularly difficult note, rather than stare at the note until a revelation occurred.  In that case, GEMINI wrote a particularly well-versed conclusion that included all of the points we were missing.  We made a few changes and used the GEMINI/SCMR-LLC version, which took less than 5 minutes against what would have likely been a 15 minute break and another 10 minutes of writing.
The next time we ran into a sticky phrasing issue, rather than get some fresh air and a better perspective, human nature took over, and we asked GEMINI to write the paragraph, which we used.  After another similar situation we realized that it was becoming progressively easier to ‘allow’ GEMINI to ‘fill in the blanks’ rather than work toward doing it ourselves.  At that point we stopped asking GEMINI to do our work and hammered out the issues ourselves once again.
Conclusion – Hack Through the Jungle
It is human nature to try to take the clear path rather than hack your way through a thick jungle, but just as social media algorithms take advantage of human nature orienting oneself to SEO, AI, and ‘digital thinking’  does the same.  When it comes to repetitive tasks, there is nothing better than letting AI do it, but when it comes to anything creative, especially writing, taking the easy path leaves us without the creativity that makes use human, and gives us the ability to write “Alice in Wonderland” and other ‘human’ classics.  We have become much more conscious of how to use what GEMINI suggests for SEO and how to avoid becoming dependent on saving time over creativity since we began the experiment.


[1] Crawl budget is the practical limit on how many URLs Googlebot can and wants to crawl on a given site within a certain time period, combining  server capacity and demand for a site’s content.

​Postscript – Aside from SEO suggestions for this note, we were surprised to see GEMINI make the following comment:
“Google’s current guidance actually leaves quite a bit of room for what you’re trying to do: keep the human voice and creativity but remove unnecessary friction and ambiguity for both humans and bots. In other words, you don’t have to “write for bots”; you have to make the surface bot-legible while keeping the core human‑centric.”

The Outlook
​

On a longer-term basis, we expect 2026 to be a mixed year, with display shipment growth within a range between -2.4% and +0.5%, with the lean toward the negative.  This will reflect on panel producer utilization rates, which we expect to be lower than this year, especially early in the year.  We do expect area growth in 2026 to be between 2.5% and 3.7% as ultra-large displays (~100”) grow as a percentage, but we caution that we expect average area growth to slow over the next few years as physical limitations keep ultra-large sets from growing larger.  On the plus side of the average panel area equation is  less fab depreciation and cost reductions for Ultra-large panels, which should make them more viable to the average customer.  On the minus side are the physical size limitations that these panels require.
Conclusion: Display Panel Market Shifts to Rational Supply Management Amid Demand Volatility
The October display panel shipment data reflects a swift correction in the consumer electronics (CE) market, shifting from two months of unusual strength to a sharp 15.8% month-over-month decline. This drawdown was driven by a combination of weakening consumer spending and an inventory correction by CE brands that had over-ordered in prior months.
Crucially, the response from dominant panel producers, particularly in China, signals the continuation of a strategic pivot toward rational supply management. By reducing fab utilization instead of aggressively cutting prices to maintain market share, a past practice enabled by generous government subsidies, manufacturers are prioritizing stable profitability over volume at all costs. This is a fundamental change in market dynamics, suggesting a healthier, more mature industry outlook less susceptible to catastrophic price collapse or sharp upward movement.
Looking ahead, the market faces a mixed-growth environment in the longer term. While unit shipments are forecast to see minimal to negative growth in 2026, the Area Shipment metric is expected to show positive growth (2.5% to 3.7%). This divergence confirms the continuing trend of larger-sized displays (e.g., 100" ultra-large TVs) driving the average yearly panel size higher, albeit with physical and cost limitations keeping some of that growth in check..
We focus on this trade-off: weak unit demand points to consumer conservatism, but the strategic reduction in supply and persistent area growth indicates a disciplined market structure that is better equipped to support panel maker financials despite the cyclical headwinds.  While we expect these factors to support a more stable display space in 2026 real consumer demand will drive shipments with a somewhat negative outlook for the 1st quarter.  Inventory levels coming out of the Christmas/New Year holidays will play into that equation, but we are still to early into the holiday season to estimate early 2026 inventory levels.

November 2025 Panel Pricing: TV Leads Decline
November panel pricing was particularly telling in that panel prices on a general basis were down 1.5%, with much of that pricing pressure coming from TV panel prices which declined by 2.9%, the largest decline since July and at the high end of our expectations, while IT panel prices (Monitors, Notebooks, Tablets) declined by 0.2%. We expected TV panel prices to decline in November as TV set brands push for lower prices as they struggle to remain profitable, however there seems to be resistance building among panel producers, as indicated by our forecast for flat to down 0.9% for the month of December.  We expect this is part of a panel producer plan to try to raise TV panel prices in 1Q, one which we expect will be difficult to accomplish.  TV set brands are still facing tariffs and higher component costs under which their margins have been reduced.  1Q is typically a relatively flat (↑0.4%) quarter in terms of aggregate pricing as demand is typically at a low for the year, so we expect considerable resistance from TV set brands to any attempt at TV panel price increases early in 2026.  December is typically down ~1.6% m/m (5-year average).
Conclusion
The core takeaway for investors in the display panel industry heading into 2026 is the imminent risk of conflict over TV panel pricing, which dominates the overall market.

• TV Panel Conflict Ahead: Panel producers, facing persistent panel price declines, plan to resist further price drops in December and attempt a price increase in Q1 2026. However, TV set brands, already struggling with profitability due to tariffs and high component costs, will strongly resist any increase, especially during the seasonally weak Q1.
• Investment Implication: This dynamic suggests price stability is more likely than a significant price rally in TV panels in early 2026. Investors should be cautious about panel producers' ability to execute a price increase and monitor their capacity utilization rates as a key indicator of pricing discipline.
• IT Panel Stability: The IT segment (Notebooks, Monitors, Tablets) shows minor price drops and is forecasted to remain relatively stable.
• Investment Implication: Panel Producers heavily focused on the IT panel segment may offer more predictable, though lower, returns than those dominated by the volatile TV market.

We expect pricing tension in the TV panel sector in Q1 2026. Investment decisions should prioritize panel producers that demonstrate cost control, strategic capacity management, and minimal reliance on the challenged TV panel profit recovery.
​

​Total Black Friday 2025 GMV: $21.4 Billion
Black Friday is still the biggest shopping holiday in the US if expectations for today’s Cyber Monday are realized.  Expectations for Cyber Monday are for $14.2 billion in GMV, ~20% higher than the $11.8 billion spent online during 2025 Black Friday, however if in-store sales are added (~$9.6 billion), the total for Black Friday this year is ~21.4 billion GMV[1], which is up ~7.0% y/y, with on-line up 9.3% and in-store up 4.3%, stronger results than we might have expected.
Consumer Electronics: 40% Share of Black Friday GMV
Consumer electronics was the largest single product category online by both volume and value, accounting for 54% of total items sold, as it is the category with the highest ASP, while also the most heavily discounted category.  On a dollar value basis (combined in-store and online) we estimate that the electronics category has a ~40% share of the total Black Friday GMV. 
Laptops & TVs: The Deep Discount Battle
As reported by a variety of sources[2] the products with this year’s biggest discounts are laptops and TVs, While heavy discounting on laptops strike us as being a bit surprising considering rather aggressive stocking of late, TV discounting was a given as weak sales in the back half of this year indicated a need to provide some incentives to move buyers to open their wallets.
Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart Black Friday 2025 Performance Breakdown

• AMAZON (AMZN)
  • ~$3.4b (All categories)
  • Top Sellers (Electronics) – Laptops, Smart Home devices, Headphones, Monitors, Gaming Consoles, Phones
    • Apple (AAPL) Air Pods ↓0.23% y/y
    • Samsung (005930.KS) Galaxy Phones ↑1.09%
  • Margins - ↑0.5% to 0.7% y/y on improved efficiency
• BEST BUY (BBY)
  • ~$2.8 - $3 billion (Electronics) across weekend
  • Most in-store demos – Meta (FB) Ray-Bans, Microsoft (MSFT) Co-pilot PC
  • Margins - ↑~2% on shift to premium products and services (Install/service contracts)
• WAL-MART (WMT)
  • Most Popular
    • TV (Samsung, TCL (000100.CH)
    • Phones – Apple, Samsung
    • Gaming – XBOX (Nintendo – 7974.JP), PlayStation (SNE)
  • Price leader in entry level – 40% - 60% discounts
  • Margins (Electronics) – 11% to 13% ↑0.2% - 0.3%
  • Margins on Doorbusters – Flat y/y

The e-commerce side grew faster than in-store and is almost doubled 2020 levels, and 54% of online purchases were made on mobile devices but deeper discounts than last year were the trend in the CE space, in order to attract higher volumes.  Retailers continue to spread out the Black Friday experience, with BF sales starting a week or more before Friday and extending through Saturday and Sunday and into Cyber Monday, with full holiday expectations expected to be up 4% to 5% (all goods) y/y.
Again, these are preliminary numbers, especially margin data, but out assessment is that Black Friday results for the CE space were slightly better than expected.  While we were concerned that consumers might have pre-bought a number of items earlier in the year in anticipation of the volatility in tariffs, it seems that was not the case, at least on Black Friday.  There is still the rest of the month in terms of shipments and sell-through, but at least the Christmas holiday period started off reasonably well based on this early data.


[1] Adobe Analytics (On-line) and Mastercard Spend (In-store)

[2] CBS News, Consumer Reports, Queue-it, Mashable, Podbase.

China Smartphone Sales: September 2025 Data
China’s official accounting for smartphone shipments has indicated that September saw shipments up 23.6% m/m and up 10.1% q/q, 12.4% above the 5 year average for the month, with shipments of domestic brands 84.7% of the total.  The 3rd quarter saw shipments of 78.63 million units, up 10.2% q/q and up 0.7% on a cumulative y/y basis.  3Q was 12.0% above the 3rd quarter 5 year average. 
The data indicated that while the month was strong on a m/m basis, the quarter was inline with last year, maintaining the modest two-year recovery in Chinese smartphone shipments but with little or no y/y growth.  We note that expectations for CE products in general for October and November are relatively low as the Chinese ‘New for Old’ consumer product summaries winds down for the year.  Expectations for 2026 are also conservative at this point, given that it is unknown whether CE subsidies will return next year and if not, how much 2026 buying power has already been used up in taking advantage of the 2025 subsidies.
Conclusion
In summary, China’s smartphone shipment data for September and Q3 2025 reveals a solid month-on-month rebound, with volumes well above medium-term historical averages. However, on a year-over-year and cumulative quarterly basis, the market remains essentially flat, reflecting a stabilization phase after two years of modest recovery. With domestic brands comprising almost 85% of shipments, national preference and competitive pricing continue to shape the market landscape. Looking ahead, market sentiment for upcoming months is cautious due to the winding down of the “New for Old” program, and projections for 2026 hinge on potential government intervention and subsidy renewal.