tft lcd versus led future quotation

TFT LCD is a mature technology. OLED is a relatively new display technology, being used in more and more applications. As for Micro LED, it is a new generation technology with very promising future. Followings are the pros and cons of each display technology.

TFT Liquid Crystal Display is widely used these days. Since LCD itself doesn"t emit light. TFT LCD relies on white LED backlight to show content. This is an explanation of how TFT LCD works.

Relatively lower contrast：Light needs to pass through LCD glasses, liquid crystal layer, polarizers and color filters. Over 90% is lost. Also, LCD can not display pure black.

Organic Light-Emitting Diode is built from an electro-luminescent layer that contains organic compounds, which emit light in response to an electric current. There are two types of OLED, Passive Matrix OLED (PMOLED) and Active Matrix OLED (AMOLED). These driving methods are similar to LCD"s. PMOLED is controlled sequentially using a matrix addressing scheme, m + n control signals are required to address a m x n display. AMOLED uses a TFT backplane that can switch individual pixels on and off.

Low power consumption and flexible: OLED doesn"t rely on backlight and consumes less power. OLED is essentially created on plastic film. It is bendable and easy to process.

High contrast and vivid color: OLED emits light itself, can produce very bright image with beautiful color. And because OLED can be turned off, it can produce true black.

Stroboscopic effect: most OLED screen uses PWM dimming technology. Some people who are easy perceive stroboscopic frequency may have sore eyes and tears.

​Micro LED, sometimes called μLED is made up of tiny LED, measure less than 100μm. Another way of looking at this is that MicroLEDs are simply traditional LEDs shrunk down and placed into an array.

Replacing organic material with inorganic GaN material eliminates the need of polarizing and encapsulation layer, found in OLED. Micro LED is smaller and thinner, consumes less power.

IPS (In-Plane Switching) lcd is still a type of TFT LCD, IPS TFT is also called SFT LCD (supper fine tft ),different to regular tft in TN (Twisted Nematic) mode, theIPS LCD liquid crystal elements inside the tft lcd cell, they are arrayed in plane inside the lcd cell when power off, so the light can not transmit it via theIPS lcdwhen power off, When power on, the liquid crystal elements inside the IPS tft would switch in a small angle, then the light would go through the IPS lcd display, then the display on since light go through the IPS display, the switching angle is related to the input power, the switch angle is related to the input power value of IPS LCD, the more switch angle, the more light would transmit the IPS LCD, we call it negative display mode.

The regular tft lcd, it is a-si TN (Twisted Nematic) tft lcd, its liquid crystal elements are arrayed in vertical type, the light could transmit the regularTFT LCDwhen power off. When power on, the liquid crystal twist in some angle, then it block the light transmit the tft lcd, then make the display elements display on by this way, the liquid crystal twist angle is also related to the input power, the more twist angle, the more light would be blocked by the tft lcd, it is tft lcd working mode.

A TFT lcd display is vivid and colorful than a common monochrome lcd display. TFT refreshes more quickly response than a monochrome LCD display and shows motion more smoothly. TFT displays use more electricity in driving than monochrome LCD screens, so they not only cost more in the first place, but they are also more expensive to drive tft lcd screen.The two most common types of TFT LCDs are IPS and TN displays.

In recent years, China and other countries have invested heavily in the research and manufacturing capacity of display technology. Meanwhile, different display technology scenarios, ranging from traditional LCD (liquid crystal display) to rapidly expanding OLED (organic light-emitting diode) and emerging QLED (quantum-dot light-emitting diode), are competing for market dominance. Amidst the trivium strife, OLED, backed by technology leader Apple"s decision to use OLED for its iPhone X, seems to have a better position, yet QLED, despite still having technological obstacles to overcome, has displayed potential advantage in color quality, lower production costs and longer life.

Zhao: We all know display technologies are very important. Currently, there are OLED, QLED and traditional LCD technologies competing with each other. What are their differences and specific advantages? Shall we start from OLED?

Huang: OLED has developed very quickly in recent years. It is better to compare it with traditional LCD if we want to have a clear understanding of its characteristics. In terms of structure, LCD largely consists of three parts: backlight, TFT backplane and cell, or liquid section for display. Different from LCD, OLED lights directly with electricity. Thus, it does not need backlight, but it still needs the TFT backplane to control where to light. Because it is free from backlight, OLED has a thinner body, higher response time, higher color contrast and lower power consumption. Potentially, it may even have a cost advantage over LCD. The biggest breakthrough is its flexible display, which seems very hard to achieve for LCD.

Liao: Actually, there were/are many different types of display technologies, such as CRT (cathode ray tube), PDP (plasma display panel), LCD, LCOS (liquid crystals on silicon), laser display, LED (light-emitting diodes), SED (surface-conduction electron-emitter display), FED (filed emission display), OLED, QLED and Micro LED. From display technology lifespan point of view, Micro LED and QLED may be considered as in the introduction phase, OLED is in the growth phase, LCD for both computer and TV is in the maturity phase, but LCD for cellphone is in the decline phase, PDP and CRT are in the elimination phase. Now, LCD products are still dominating the display market while OLED is penetrating the market. As just mentioned by Dr Huang, OLED indeed has some advantages over LCD.

Huang: Despite the apparent technological advantages of OLED over LCD, it is not straightforward for OLED to replace LCD. For example, although both OLED and LCD use the TFT backplane, the OLED’s TFT is much more difficult to be made than that of the voltage-driven LCD because OLED is current-driven. Generally speaking, problems for mass production of display technology can be divided into three categories, namely scientific problems, engineering problems and production problems. The ways and cycles to solve these three kinds of problems are different.

At present, LCD has been relatively mature, while OLED is still in the early stage of industrial explosion. For OLED, there are still many urgent problems to be solved, especially production problems that need to be solved step by step in the process of mass production line. In addition, the capital threshold for both LCD and OLED are very high. Compared with the early development of LCD many years ago, the advancing pace of OLED has been quicker.While in the short term, OLED can hardly compete with LCD in large size screen, how about that people may change their use habit to give up large screen?

Liao: I want to supplement some data. According to the consulting firm HIS Markit, in 2018, the global market value for OLED products will be US$38.5 billion. But in 2020, it will reach US$67 billion, with an average compound annual growth rate of 46%. Another prediction estimates that OLED accounts for 33% of the display market sales, with the remaining 67% by LCD in 2018. But OLED’s market share could reach to 54% in 2020.

Huang: While different sources may have different prediction, the advantage of OLED over LCD in small and medium-sized display screen is clear. In small-sized screen, such as smart watch and smart phone, the penetration rate of OLED is roughly 20% to 30%, which represents certain competitiveness. For large size screen, such as TV, the advancement of OLED [against LCD] may need more time.

Xu: LCD was first proposed in 1968. During its development process, the technology has gradually overcome its own shortcomings and defeated other technologies. What are its remaining flaws? It is widely recognized that LCD is very hard to be made flexible. In addition, LCD does not emit light, so a back light is needed. The trend for display technologies is of course towards lighter and thinner (screen).

But currently, LCD is very mature and economic. It far surpasses OLED, and its picture quality and display contrast do not lag behind. Currently, LCD technology"s main target is head-mounted display (HMD), which means we must work on display resolution. In addition, OLED currently is only appropriate for medium and small-sized screens, but large screen has to rely on LCD. This is why the industry remains investing in the 10.5th generation production line (of LCD).

Xu: While deeply impacted by OLED’s super thin and flexible display, we also need to analyse the insufficiency of OLED. With lighting material being organic, its display life might be shorter. LCD can easily be used for 100 000 hours. The other defense effort by LCD is to develop flexible screen to counterattack the flexible display of OLED. But it is true that big worries exist in LCD industry.

LCD industry can also try other (counterattacking) strategies. We are advantageous in large-sized screen, but how about six or seven years later? While in the short term, OLED can hardly compete with LCD in large size screen, how about that people may change their use habit to give up large screen? People may not watch TV and only takes portable screens.

Some experts working at a market survey institute CCID (China Center for Information Industry Development) predicted that in five to six years, OLED will be very influential in small and medium-sized screen. Similarly, a top executive of BOE Technology said that after five to six years, OLED will counterweigh or even surpass LCD in smaller sizes, but to catch up with LCD, it may need 10 to 15 years.

Xu: Besides LCD, Micro LED (Micro Light-Emitting Diode Display) has evolved for many years, though people"s real attention to the display option was not aroused until May 2014 when Apple acquired US-based Micro LED developer LuxVue Technology. It is expected that Micro LED will be used on wearable digital devices to improve battery"s life and screen brightness.

Micro LED, also called mLED or μLED, is a new display technology. Using a so-called mass transfer technology, Micro LED displays consist of arrays of microscopic LEDs forming the individual pixel elements. It can offer better contrast, response times, very high resolution and energy efficiency. Compared with OLED, it has higher lightening efficiency and longer life span, but its flexible display is inferior to OLED. Compared with LCD, Micro LED has better contrast, response times and energy efficiency. It is widely considered appropriate for wearables, AR/VR, auto display and mini-projector.

However, Micro LED still has some technological bottlenecks in epitaxy, mass transfer, driving circuit, full colorization, and monitoring and repairing. It also has a very high manufacturing cost. In short term, it cannot compete traditional LCD. But as a new generation of display technology after LCD and OLED, Micro LED has received wide attentions and it should enjoy fast commercialization in the coming three to five years.

Peng: It comes to quantum dot. First, QLED TV on market today is a misleading concept. Quantum dots are a class of semiconductor nanocrystals, whose emission wavelength can be continuously tuned because of the so-called quantum confinement effect. Because they are inorganic crystals, quantum dots in display devices are very stable. Also, due to their single crystalline nature, emission color of quantum dots can be extremely pure, which dictates the color quality of display devices.

Interestingly, quantum dots as light-emitting materials are related to both OLED and LCD. The so-called QLED TVs on market are actually quantum-dot enhanced LCD TVs, which use quantum dots to replace the green and red phosphors in LCD’s backlight unit. By doing so, LCD displays greatly improve their color purity, picture quality and potentially energy consumption. The working mechanisms of quantum dots in these enhanced LCD displays is their photoluminescence.

For its relationship with OLED, quantum-dot light-emitting diode (QLED) can in certain sense be considered as electroluminescence devices by replacing the organic light-emitting materials in OLED. Though QLED and OLED have nearly identical structure, they also have noticeable differences. Similar to LCD with quantum-dot backlighting unit, color gamut of QLED is much wider than that of OLED and it is more stable than OLED.

Another big difference between OLED and QLED is their production technology. OLED relies on a high-precision technique called vacuum evaporation with high-resolution mask. QLED cannot be produced in this way because quantum dots as inorganic nanocrystals are very difficult to be vaporized. If QLED is commercially produced, it has to be printed and processed with solution-based technology. You can consider this as a weakness, since the printing electronics at present is far less precision than the vacuum-based technology. However, solution-based processing can also be considered as an advantage, because if the production problem is overcome, it costs much less than the vacuum-based technology applied for OLED. Without considering TFT, investment into an OLED production line often costs tens of billions of yuan but investment for QLED could be just 90–95% less.

Given the relatively low resolution of printing technology, QLED shall be difficult to reach a resolution greater than 300 PPI (pixels per inch) within a few years. Thus, QLED might not be applied for small-sized displays at present and its potential will be medium to large-sized displays.

Peng: Good questions. Ligand chemistry of quantum dots has developed quickly in the past two to three years. Colloidal stability of inorganic nanocrystals should be said of being solved. We reported in 2016 that one gram of quantum dots can be stably dispersed in one milliliter of organic solution, which is certainly sufficient for printing technology. For the second question, several companies have been able to mass produce quantum dots. At present, all these production volume is built for fabrication of the backlighting units for LCD. It is believed that all high-end TVs from Samsung in 2017 are all LCD TVs with quantum-dot backlighting units. In addition, Nanosys in the United States is also producing quantum dots for LCD TVs. NajingTech at Hangzhou, China demonstrate production capacity to support the Chinese TV makers. To my knowledge, NajingTech is establishing a production line for 10 million sets of color TVs with quantum-dot backlighting units annually.China"s current demands cannot be fully satisfied from the foreign companies. It is also necessary to fulfill the demands of domestic market. That is why China must develop its OLED production capability.

Huang: Based on my understanding of Samsung, the leading Korean player in OLED market, we cannot say it had foresight in the very beginning. Samsung began to invest in AMOLED (active-matrix organic light-emitting diode, a major type of OLED used in the display industry) in about 2003, and did not realize mass production until 2007. Its OLED production reached profitability in 2010. Since then, Samsung gradually secured a market monopoly status.

So, originally, OLED was only one of Samsung"s several alternative technology pathways. But step by step, it achieved an advantageous status in the market and so tended to maintain it by expanding its production capacity.

Another reason is customers’ demands. Apple has refrained itself from using OLED for some years due to various reasons, including the patent disputes with Samsung. But after Apple began to use OLED for its iPhone X, it exerted a big influence in the whole industry. So now Samsung began to harvest its accumulated investments in the field and began to expand the capacity more.

Liao: South Korean manufacturers including Samsung and LG Electronics have controlled 90% of global supplies of medium and small-sized OLED panels. Since Apple began to buy OLED panels from Samsung for its cellphone products, there were no more enough panels shipping to China. Therefore, China"s current demands cannot be fully satisfied from the foreign companies. On the other hand, because China has a huge market for cellphones, it would be necessary to fulfill the demands through domestic efforts. That is why China must develop its OLED production capability.

Huang: The importance of China"s LCD manufacturing is now globally high. Compared with the early stage of LCD development, China"s status in OLED has been dramatically improved. When developing LCD, China has adopted the pattern of introduction-absorption-renovation. Now for OLED, we have a much higher percentage of independent innovation.

Then it is the scale of human resources. One big factory will create several thousand jobs, and it will mobilize a whole production chain, involving thousands of workers. The requirement of supplying these engineers and skilled workers can be fulfilled in China.

The third advantage is the national supports. The government has input huge supports and manufacturers’ technological capacity is improving. I think Chinese manufacturers will have a great breakthrough in OLED.

Although we cannot say that our advantages triumph over ROK, where Samsung and LG have been dominating the field for many years, we have achieved many significant progresses in developing the material and parts of OLED. We also have high level of innovation in process technology and designs. We already have several major manufacturers, such as Visionox, BOE, EDO and Tianma, which have owned significant technological reserves.

Peng: As mentioned above, there are two ways to apply quantum dots for display, namely photoluminescence in backlightingFor QLED, the three stages of technological development [from science issue to engineering and finally to mass production] have been mingled together at the same time. If one wants to win the competition, it is necessary to invest on all three dimensions.

units for LCD and electroluminescence in QLED. For the photoluminescence applications, the key is quantum-dot materials. China has noticeable advantages in quantum-dot materials.

China is internationally leading in electroluminescence at present. In fact, it was the 2014 Nature publication by a group of scientists from Zhejiang University that proved QLED can reach the stringent requirements for display applications. However, who will become the final winner of the international competition on electroluminescence remains unclear. China"s investment in quantum-dot technology lags far behind US and ROK. Basically, the quantum-dot research has been centered in US for most of its history, and South Korean players have invested heavily along this direction as well.

For electroluminescence, it is very likely to co-exist with OLED for a long period of time. This is so because, in small screen, QLED’s resolution is limited by printing technology.

Peng: If electroluminescence can be successfully achieved with printing, it will be much cheaper, with only about 1/10th cost of OLED. Manufacturers like NajingTech and BOE in China have demonstrated printing displays with quantum dots. At present, QLED does not compete with OLED directly, given its market in small-sized screen. A while ago, Dr. Huang mentioned three stages of technological development, from science issue to engineering and finally to mass production. For QLED, the three stages have been mingled together at the same time. If one wants to win the competition, it is necessary to invest on all three dimensions.

Huang: When OLED was compared with LCD in the past, lots of advantages of OLED were highlighted, such as high color gamut, high contrast and high response speed and so on. But above advantages would be difficult to be the overwhelming superiority to make the consumers to choose replacement.

It seems to be possible that the flexible display will eventually lead a killer advantage. I think QLED will also face similar situation. What is its real advantage if it is compared with OLED or LCD? For QLED, it seems to have been difficult to find the advantage in small screen. Dr. Peng has suggested its advantage lies in medium-sized screen, but what is its uniqueness?

Peng: The two types of key advantages of QLED are discussed above. One, QLED is based on solution-based printing technology, which is low cost and high yield. Two, quantum-dot emitters vender QLED with a large color gamut, high picture quality and superior device lifetime. Medium-sized screen is easiest for the coming QLED technologies but QLED for large screen is probably a reasonable extension afterwards.

Huang: But customers may not accept only better wider color range if they need to pay more money for this. I would suggest QLED consider the changes in color standards, such as the newly released BT2020 (defining high-definition 4 K TV), and new unique applications which cannot be satisfied by other technologies. The future of QLED seems also relying on the maturity of printing technology.

Peng: New standard (BT2020) certainly helps QLED, given BT2020 meaning a broad color gamut. Among the technologies discussed today, quantum-dot displays in either form are the only ones that can satisfy BT2020 without any optical compensation. In addition, studies found that the picture quality of display is highly associated with color gamut. It is correct that the maturity of printing technology plays an important role in the development of QLED. The current printing technology is ready for medium-sized screen and should be able to be extended to large-sized screen without much trouble.

Xu: For QLED to become a dominant technology, it is still difficult. In its development process, OLED precedes it and there are other rivaling technologies following. While we know owning the foundational patents and core technologies of QLED can make you a good position, holding core technologies alone cannot ensure you to become a mainstream technology. The government"s investment in such key technologies after all is small as compared with industry and cannot decide QLED to become mainstream technology.

Peng: Domestic industry sector has begun to invest in these future technologies. For example, NajingTech has invested about 400 million yuan ($65 million) in QLED, primarily in electroluminescence. There are some leading domestic players having invested into the field. Yes, this is far from enough. For example, there are few domestic companies investing R&D of printing technologies. Our printing equipment is primarily made by the US, European and Japan players. I think this is also a chance for China (to develop the printing technologies).

Liao: Due to their lack of kernel technologies, Chinese OLED panel manufacturers heavily rely on investments to improve their market competitiveness. But this may cause the overheated investment in the OLED industry. In recent years, China has already imported quite a few new OLED production lines with the total cost of about 450 billion yuan (US$71.5 billion).Lots of advantages of OLED over LCD were highlighted, such as high color gamut, high contrast and high response speed and so on …. It seems to be possible that the flexible display will eventually lead a killer advantage.

The short of talent human resources perhaps is another issue to influence the fast expansion of the industry domestically. For an example, BOE alone demands more than 1000 new engineers last year. However, the domestic universities certainly cannot fulfill this requirement for specially trained OLED working forces currently. A major problem is the training is not implemented in accordance with industry demands but surrounding academic papers.

Liao: However, Chinese researchers’ priority pursuit of papers is in disjunction from industry demand. Majority of people (at universities) who are working on organic optoelectronics are more interested in the fields of QLED, organic solar cells, perovskite solar cells and thin-film transistors because they are trendy fields and have more chances to publish research papers. On the other hand, many studies that are essential to solve industry"s problems, such as developing domestic versions of equipment, are not so essential for paper publication, so that faculty and students shed from them.

Zhao: Today there are really good observations, discussions and suggestions. The industry-academics-research collaboration is crucial to the future of China"s display technologies. We all should work hard on this.

KLA is proud to be part of the most significant technological breakthroughs that help create the devices and ideas that transform our current life and shape our future. One of the latest emerging trends is a renewed focus on microLED technology.

As the name suggests, a microLED, or µLED, is a light-emitting diode (LED) – roughly 100 times smaller than conventional LEDs. MicroLEDs can be arranged into arrays to make high-resolution displays for applications ranging from smartwatches to very large displays – unlike conventional LEDs, which are suitable only for very large displays like billboards or stadium screens.

MicroLED technology was invented in 2000. However, it wasn"t until 2012 that a major consumer electronics company demonstrated a 55-inch, high-definition microLED TV. Other companies followed with their own demonstrations in 2018 and 2019 at retail prices of $80,000 for 89-inch models, making the technology out of reach for most consumers. Although microLED can potentially offer significant advantages over LCD or organic light-emitting diode (OLED) screens, technology issues and production costs have prevented widespread commercialization.

KLA – which has supported the global display industry for more than 40 years – has during the past decade been helping leaders in microLED technologies to overcome many of the obstacles to mass production and reduced costs.

"Our proven process and process control products are designed to meet the unique and demanding challenges of the complex microLED production flow to help accelerate wide market adoption," said Chet Lenox, KLA fellow, industry and customer collaboration.

While more products, based on slightly larger "miniLEDs" (typically ~50µm-300µm square), have been brought to market successfully in recent years as a way to improve on traditional LED backlighting for LCD displays, screen manufacturers and their supply chain are still committed to developing the more advanced microLED technology. In addition to the key goal of reducing product cost for consumers, companies are investing heavily in microLEDs for use in small products like watches and augmented reality (AR) headsets because they deliver better energy efficiency, consistent pixel quality and other key benefits as shown in the graphics below.

The potential market is huge. Shipping for microLED displays is expected to total 5 million and generate $7 billion in revenue by 2025, rising to more than 11 million units shipped in 2027, according to global technology research firm Omdia.

A key factor behind the industry"s focus on microLEDs is that LCD and OLED displays are produced on large substrates, where all layers are deposited one after the other. The larger the substrate, the more efficient the process – but large single displays can be difficult to handle and ship. MicroLEDs displays, however, can be produced using seamless tiling of small modules into larger displays.

The schematic cross-section of a typical microLED display (below) shows the simpler and thinner structure of a microLED compared to a thin film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT LCD) or OLED display, with the red/green/blue LED chips and a single electrode encased between the substrate and glass cover. The precise arrangement of the red, green and blue sub-pixels will vary among models and may even be stacked on top of each other.

MicroLEDs offer viewing performance equivalent to or, for some criteria such as brightness and refresh rate, better than OLED and LCD technologies. They also offer a longer life than OLED, thinner packaging and generally better energy efficiencies.

*Mass transferring millions of micro-sized red, green and blue microLEDs in the desired arrangement and precise locations (Solutions to avoid this might include the use of white or blue microLEDs with color conversion, growing uLEDs directly on silicon backplanes or using wafer-bonding of epi layers on the backplane.)

Each of the above would seem to add cost and make LCDs and OLEDs more economical. However, KLA"s metrology, inspection, wafer processing and repair solutions are critical to helping microLED manufacturers address these challenges, optimize yields, reduce the need for built-in redundancy and reduce expenditures to help microLED displays become a viable alternative to the established technologies.

KLA"s comprehensive portfolio of solutions for microLED manufacturing provides a pathway to yield improvement throughout the entire process – from epitaxy wafer to final display. KLA"s proven process and process control products are designed to meet the unique and demanding challenges of complex microLED production.

TrendForce indicates, border controls and lockdowns have led to a disruption of logistics and labor due to the impact of the pandemic in the past two years. In order to avoid production and shipment gridlock, branded manufacturers overstocked from distribution channels to components. However, as logistics and transportation conditions have improved, previously prepared materials have subsequently arrived in relevant warehouses or ports. As pandemic induced demand subsides, terminal sales have suffered due to rising global inflation and the Russian-Ukrainian war. As a result, the inventory problem continues to deteriorate and all aspects of the overall supply chain has entered red alert.

Since this type of situation applied not only to a single application, utilization rate is reduced whether it is Gen5, primarily used in producing laptops, or large-size LCD monitors and TVs. None of the large generational fabs were spared. TrendForce indicates that the utilization rate of Gen5 to Gen7.5 is expected to decrease by 7.7% percentage points to 63.7% and the utilization rate of Gen8 to Gen10.5 will decrease by 7 percentage points to 75% in 3Q22. More than 90% of the Gen10.5 utilization rate used to produce TVs is expected to drop by 17.8 percentage points QoQ, which also highlights the continuing pessimistic demand for TV panels in 3Q22.

As far as panel makers are concerned, depreciation and amortization pressure on Chinese panel makers is more severe than that of other panel makers due to the construction of new factories. In addition, looking at total shipments of larger-sized applications (TVs, monitor panels, and notebooks), Chinese panel makers account for more than half the market, so when the bottom drops out, impact on these companies will be greater than on competitors. Looking at the three leading Chinese panel manufacturers, although BOE’s capacity allocation is very flexible, a drop of 4 percentage points in overall utilization rate cannot be ruled out in 3Q22. At the same time, China Star Optoelectronics (CSOT) and Huike Optoelectronics (HKC) will not only readjust their older factories in 3Q22 but also slow the rate at which new factories ramp up. The overall operating watermark of these two panel manufacturers is estimated to decrease by 13.3 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively.

Although the pressure of depreciation and amortization on Taiwanese manufacturer AUO is small, in response to changes in market demand, the company had already started production adjustment in 2Q22. It is expected to continue implementing this strategy in 3Q22 with overall utilization rate falling to 50%. On the other hand, Innolux expects overall utilization to drop by 6.7 percentage points QoQ. Japanese panel manufacturer Sharp is at a relative disadvantage in terms of overhead, and its customer concentration is too high. Its major branded clients have canceled orders, allowing inventory to stack up quickly. Therefore, Sharp has only just announced that it will begin to aggressively scale-down in its Japanese production line in July. In turn, the company’s overall utilization rate decreased by 26.3 percentage points to 59.3% in 3Q22. LG Display, a Korean panel maker, is expected to maintain a similar operating level as in 2Q22 after a sustained contraction in LCD production capacity due to a strategic shift.

TrendForce indicates, if panel makers do not wish to face the risk of high inventories at the beginning of 2023, they should maintain reduced operations in 4Q22 in order to eliminate existing panel inventory. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the utilization rate of LCD Gen5 (including) and above large generational fabs will maintain the same level of operation as in 3Q22. In the past, production cuts were the main response whenever the market was oversupplied. However, with future production capacity still growing, the speed at which brands deplete their inventories and global political and economic trends will be key factors affecting the future display market. If market conditions continue to deteriorate, it cannot be ruled out that the industry will face another reshuffle, setting off a further wave of mergers and acquisitions.

Gaspar, D. J. & Polikarpov, E. OLED Fundamentals: Materials, Devices, and Processing of Organic Light-Emitting Diodes. (Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL, 2015).

Tull, B. R. et al. High brightness, emissive microdisplay by integration of III-V LEDs with thin film silicon transistors. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers46, 375–377 (2015).

Takeda, A. et al. A super-high image quality multi-domain vertical alignment LCD by new rubbing-less technology. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers29, 1077–1080 (1998).

Lee, S. H., Lee, S. L. & Kim, H. Y. Electro-optic characteristics and switching principle of a nematic liquid crystal cell controlled by fringe-field switching. Appl. Phys. Lett.73, 2881–2883 (1998).

Kim, H. J. et al. Optical efficiency enhancement in wide color gamut LCD by a patterned quantum dot film and short pass reflector. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers47, 827–829 (2016).

Soh, M. Y. et al. Design and characterization of micro-LED matrix display with heterogeneous integration of GaN and BCD technologies. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices66, 4221–4227 (2019).

Ahn, H. A., Hong, S. K. & Kwon, O. K. An active matrix micro-pixelated LED display driver for high luminance uniformity using resistance mismatch compensation method. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II: Express Briefs65, 724–728 (2018).

Chaji, G. R. & Nathan, A. Parallel addressing scheme for voltage-programmed active-matrix OLED displays. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices54, 1095–1100 (2007).

Templier, F. et al. A novel process for fabricating high-resolution and very small pixel-pitch GaN LED microdisplays. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers48, 268–271 (2017).

Templier, F. et al. Advanced solutions for high-performance GaN MicroLED displays. Proceedings of SPIE 10918, Gallium Nitride Materials and Devices XIV. (SPIE, San Francisco, 2019).

Takita, Y. et al. Highly efficient deep-blue fluorescent dopant for achieving low-power OLED display satisfying BT.2020 chromaticity. J. Soc. Inf. Disp.26, 55–63 (2018).

Olivier, F. et al. Shockley-Read-Hall and Auger non-radiative recombination in GaN based LEDs: a size effect study. Appl. Phys. Lett.111, 022104 (2017).

Chen, S. M., Sun, X. W. & Kwok, H. S. Hybrid analog-digital driving method for high definition AMOLED. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers45, 1514–1517 (2014).

Hosoumi, S. et al. Ultra-wide color gamut OLED display using a deep-red phosphorescent device with high efficiency, long life, thermal stability, and absolute BT.2020 red chromaticity. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers48, 13–16 (2017).

Utsumi, Y. et al. Improved contrast ratio in IPS-Pro LCD TV by using quantitative analysis of depolarized light leakage from component materials. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers39, 129–132 (2008).

Guarnieri, G., Albani, L. & Ramponi, G. Minimum-error splitting algorithm for a dual layer LCD display—part I: background and theory. J. Display Technol.4, 383–390 (2008).

Guarnieri, G., Albani, L. & Ramponi, G. Minimum-error splitting algorithm for a dual layer LCD display—part II: implementation and results. J. Display Technol.4, 391–397 (2008).

Nishimura, J. et al. Super bright 8K LCD with 10,000 nit realized by excellent light-resistance characteristics of IGZO TFT backplane. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers51, paper 3.1 (2020).

Daly, S. & Feng, X. F. Bit-depth extension: overcoming LCD-driver limitations by using models of the equivalent input noise of the visual system. J. Soc. Inf. Display13, 51–66 (2005).

Guo, W. J. et al. The impact of luminous properties of red, green, and blue mini-LEDs on the color gamut. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices66, 2263–2268 (2019).

Kim, H. M. et al. Ten micrometer pixel, quantum dots color conversion layer for high resolution and full color active matrix micro-LED display. J. Soc. Inf. Disp.27, 347–353 (2019).

Chen, H. W. et al. Liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode display: present status and future perspectives. Light: Sci. Appl.7, 17168 (2018).

AU Optronics Corp. AUO Showcases Mini LED Backlit LCDs Across Diverse Verticals to Seize Smart Living Market Opportunities. https://www.auo.com/en-global/New_Archive/detail/News_Archive_Technology_190513 (2019).

Handschy, M. A., McNeil, J. R. & Weissman, P. E. Ultrabright head-mounted displays using LED-illuminated LCOS. Proceedings of SPIE 6224, Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays XI: Technologies and Applications. (SPIE, Florida, 2006).

Zhang, L. et al. Monochromatic active matrix micro-LED micro-displays with >5,000 dpi pixel density fabricated using monolithic hybrid integration process. SID Symp. Digest Tech. Papers49, 333–336 (2018).

Fan, R., Zhang, X. N. & Tu, Z. T. Influence of ambient temperature on OLED lifetime and uniformity based on modified equivalent lifetime detection. J. Soc. Inf. Disp.27, 597–607 (2019).

To evaluate the performance of display devices, several metrics are commonly used, such as response time, CR, color gamut, panel flexibility, viewing angle, resolution density, peak brightness, lifetime, among others. Here we compare LCD and OLED devices based on these metrics one by one.

where Tf is the frame time (e.g., Tf=16.67 ms for 60 fps). Using this equation, we can easily obtain an MPRT as long as the LC response time and TFT frame rate are known. The results are plotted in Figure 5.

From Figure 5, we can gain several important physical insights: (1) Increasing the frame rate is a simple approach to suppress image motion blur, but its improvement gradually saturates. For example, if the LC response time is 10 ms, then increasing the frame rate from 30 to 60 fps would significantly reduce the MPRT. However, as the TFT frame rate continues to increase to 120 and 240 fps, then the improvement gradually saturates. (2) At a given frame rate, say 120 fps, as the LC response time decreases, the MPRT decreases almost linearly and then saturates. This means that the MPRT is mainly determined by the TFT frame rate once the LC response time is fast enough, i.e., τ≪Tf. Under such conditions, Equation (1) is reduced to MPRT≈0.8Tf. (3) When the LC response is <2 ms, its MPRT is comparable to that of an OLED at the same frame rate, e.g., 120 fps. Here we assume the OLED’s response time is 0.

The last finding is somehow counter to the intuition that a LCD should have a more severe motion picture image blur, as its response time is approximately 1000 × slower than that of an OLED (ms vs. μs). To validate this prediction, Chen et al.

If we want to further suppress image blur to an unnoticeable level (MPRT<2 ms), decreasing the duty ratio (for LCDs, this is the on-time ratio of the backlight, called scanning backlight or blinking backlight) is mostly adopted

High CR is a critical requirement for achieving supreme image quality. OLEDs are emissive, so, in theory, their CR could approach infinity to one. However, this is true only under dark ambient conditions. In most cases, ambient light is inevitable. Therefore, for practical applications, a more meaningful parameter, called the ACR, should be considered

To investigate the ACR, we have to clarify the reflectance first. A large TV is often operated by remote control, so touchscreen functionality is not required. As a result, an anti-reflection coating is commonly adopted. Let us assume that the reflectance is 1.2% for both LCD and OLED TVs. For the peak brightness and CR, different TV makers have their own specifications. Here, without losing generality, let us use the following brands as examples for comparison: LCD peak brightness=1200 nits, LCD CR=5000:1 (Sony 75″ X940E LCD TV); OLED peak brightness=600 nits, and OLED CR=infinity (Sony 77″ A1E OLED TV). The obtained ACR for both LCD and OLED TVs is plotted in Figure 7a. As expected, OLEDs have a much higher ACR in the low illuminance region (dark room) but drop sharply as ambient light gets brighter. At 63 lux, OLEDs have the same ACR as LCDs. Beyond 63 lux, LCDs take over. In many countries, 60 lux is the typical lighting condition in a family living room. This implies that LCDs have a higher ACR when the ambient light is brighter than 60 lux, such as in office lighting (320–500 lux) and a living room with the window shades or curtain open. Please note that, in our simulation, we used the real peak brightness of LCDs (1200 nits) and OLEDs (600 nits). In most cases, the displayed contents could vary from black to white. If we consider a typical 50% average picture level (i.e., 600 nits for LCDs vs. 300 nits for OLEDs), then the crossover point drops to 31 lux (not shown here), and LCDs are even more favorable. This is because the on-state brightness plays an important role to the ACR, as Equation (2) shows.

Calculated ACR as a function of different ambient light conditions for LCD and OLED TVs. Here we assume that the LCD peak brightness is 1200 nits and OLED peak brightness is 600 nits, with a surface reflectance of 1.2% for both the LCD and OLED. (a) LCD CR: 5000:1, OLED CR: infinity; (b) LCD CR: 20 000:1, OLED CR: infinity.

Recently, an LCD panel with an in-cell polarizer was proposed to decouple the depolarization effect of the LC layer and color filtersFigure 7b. Now, the crossover point takes place at 16 lux, which continues to favor LCDs.

For mobile displays, such as smartphones, touch functionality is required. Thus the outer surface is often subject to fingerprints, grease and other contaminants. Therefore, only a simple grade AR coating is used, and the total surface reflectance amounts to ~4.4%. Let us use the FFS LCD as an example for comparison with an OLED. The following parameters are used in our simulations: the LCD peak brightness is 600 nits and CR is 2000:1, while the OLED peak brightness is 500 nits and CR is infinity. Figure 8a depicts the calculated results, where the intersection occurs at 107 lux, which corresponds to a very dark overcast day. If the newly proposed structure with an in-cell polarizer is used, the FFS LCD could attain a 3000:1 CRFigure 8b), corresponding to an office building hallway or restroom lighting. For reference, a typical office light is in the range of 320–500 luxFigure 8 depicts, OLEDs have a superior ACR under dark ambient conditions, but this advantage gradually diminishes as the ambient light increases. This was indeed experimentally confirmed by LG Display

Calculated ACR as a function of different ambient light conditions for LCD and OLED smartphones. Reflectance is assumed to be 4.4% for both LCD and OLED. (a) LCD CR: 2000:1, OLED CR: infinity; (b) LCD CR: 3000:1, OLED CR: infinity. (LCD peak brightness: 600 nits; OLED peak brightness: 500 nits).

For conventional LCDs employing a WLED backlight, the yellow spectrum generated by YAG (yttrium aluminum garnet) phosphor is too broad to become highly saturated RGB primary colors, as shown in Figure 9aTable 2. The first choice is the RG-phosphor-converted WLEDFigure 9b, the red and green emission spectra are well separated; still, the green spectrum (generated by β-sialon:Eu2+ phosphor) is fairly broad and red spectrum (generated by K2SiF6:Mn4+ (potassium silicofluoride, KSF) phosphor) is not deep enough, leading to 70%–80% Rec. 2020, depending on the color filters used.

Transmission spectra of color filters and emission spectra of (a) YAG WLED, (b) KSF WLED, (c) QDEF and (d) Vivid Color LED. KSF, potassium silicofluoride; QDEF, quantum dot enhancement film; WLED, white light-emitting diode; YAG, yttrium aluminum garnet.

Recently, a new LED technology, called the Vivid Color LED, was demonstratedFigure 9d), which leads to an unprecedented color gamut (~98% Rec. 2020) together with specially designed color filters. Such a color gamut is comparable to that of laser-lit displays but without laser speckles. Moreover, the Vivid Color LED is heavy-metal free and shows good thermal stability. If the efficiency and cost can be further improved, it would be a perfect candidate for an LCD backlight.

A color filter array is another effective approach to enhance the color gamut of an OLED. For example, in 2017, AUO demonstrated a 5-inch top-emission OLED panel with 95% Rec. 2020. In this design, so-called symmetric panel stacking with a color filter is employed to generate purer RGB primary colors

As mentioned earlier, TFT LCDs are a fairly mature technology. They can be operated for >10 years without noticeable performance degradation. However, OLEDs are more sensitive to moisture and oxygen than LCDs. Thus their lifetime, especially for blue OLEDs, is still an issue. For mobile displays, this is not a critical issue because the expected usage of a smartphone is approximately 2–3 years. However, for large TVs, a lifetime of >30 000 h (>10 years) has become the normal expectation for consumers.

Here we focus on two types of lifetime: storage and operational. To enable a 10-year storage lifetime, according to the analysis−6 g (m2-day)−1 and 1 × 10−5 cm3 (m2-day)−1, respectively. To achieve these values, organic and/or inorganic thin films have been developed to effectively protect the OLED and lengthen its storage lifetime. Meanwhile, it is compatible to flexible substrates and favors a thinner display profile

The next type of lifetime is operational lifetime. Owing to material degradation, OLED luminance will decrease and voltage will increase after long-term drivingT50) can be as long as >80 000 h with a 1000 cd m−2 luminanceT50, half lifetime) with an initial luminance of 1000 nits. However, this is still ~20 × shorter than that of red and green phosphorescent OLEDs

To further enhance the lifetime of the blue OLED, the NTU group has developed new ETL and TTF-EML materials together with an optimized layer structure and double EML structureFigure 10a shows the luminance decay curves of such a blue OLED under different initial luminance values (5000, 10 000, and 15 000 nits). From Figure 10b, the estimated T50 at 1000 nits of this blue OLED is ~56 000 h (~6–7 years)

Power consumption is equally important as other metrics. For LCDs, power consumption consists of two parts: the backlight and driving electronics. The ratio between these two depends on the display size and resolution density. For a 55″ 4K LCD TV, the backlight occupies approximately 90% of the total power consumption. To make full use of the backlight, a dual brightness enhancement film is commonly embedded to recycle mismatched polarized light

The power efficiency of an OLED is generally limited by the extraction efficiency (ηext~20%). To improve the power efficiency, multiple approaches can be used, such as a microlens array, a corrugated structure with a high refractive index substrateFigure 11 shows the power efficiencies of white, green, red and blue phosphorescent as well as blue fluorescent/TTF OLEDs over time. For OLEDs with fluorescent emitters in the 1980s and 1990s, the power efficiency was limited by the IQE, typically <10 lm W−1(Refs. 41, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118). With the incorporation of phosphorescent emitters in the ~2000 s, the power efficiency was significantly improved owing to the materials and device engineering−1 was demonstrated in 2011 (Ref. 127), which showed a >100 × improvement compared with that of the basic two-layer device proposed in 1987 (1.5 lm W−1 in Ref. 41). A white OLED with a power efficiency >100 lm W−1 was also demonstrated, which was comparable to the power efficiency of a LCD backlight. For red and blue OLEDs, their power efficiencies are generally lower than that of the green OLED due to their lower photopic sensitivity function, and there is a tradeoff between color saturation and power efficiency. Note, we separated the performances of blue phosphorescent and fluorescent/TTF OLEDs. For the blue phosphorescent OLEDs, although the power efficiency can be as high as ~80 lm W−1, the operation lifetime is short and color is sky-blue. For display applications, the blue TTF OLED is the favored choice, with an acceptable lifetime and color but a much lower power efficiency (16 lm W−1) than its phosphorescent counterpartFigure 11 shows.

Power efficiency of white, red, green and phosphorescent blue and fluorescent/TTF blue OLEDs over time. Data are compiled from Refs. 41, 45, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133.

To compare the power consumption of LCDs and OLEDs with the same resolution density, the displayed contents should be considered as well. In general, OLEDs are more efficient than LCDs for displaying dark images because black pixels consume little power for an emissive display, while LCDs are more efficient than OLEDs at displaying bright images. Currently, a ~65% average picture level is the intersection point between RGB OLEDs and LCDs

In addition to the aforementioned six display metrics, other parameters are equally important. For example, high-resolution density has become a standard for all high-end display devices. Currently, LCD is taking the lead in consumer electronic products. Eight-hundred ppi or even >1000 ppi LCDs have already been demonstrated and commercialized, such as in the Sony 5.5″ 4k Smartphone Xperia Z5 Premium. The resolution of RGB OLEDs is limited by the physical dimension of the fine-pitch shadow mask. To compete with LCDs, most OLED displays use the PenTile RGB subpixel matrix scheme

The viewing angle is another important property that defines the viewing experience at large oblique angles, which is quite critical for multi-viewer applications. OLEDs are self-emissive and have an angular distribution that is much broader than that of LCDs. For instance, at a 30° viewing angle, the OLED brightness only decreases by 30%, whereas the LCD brightness decrease exceeds 50%. To widen an LCD’s viewing angle, three options can be used. (1) Remove the brightness-enhancement film in the backlight system. The tradeoff is decreased on-axis brightness

In addition to brightness, color, grayscale and the CR also vary with the viewing angle, known as color shift and gamma shift. In these aspects, LCDs and OLEDs have different mechanisms. For LCDs, they are induced by the anisotropic property of the LC material, which could be compensated for with uniaxial or biaxial films

Cost is another key factor for consumers. LCDs have been the topic of extensive investigation and investment, whereas OLED technology is emerging and its fabrication yield and capability are still far behind LCDs. As a result, the price of OLEDs is about twice as high as that of LCDs, especially for large displays. As more investment is made in OLEDs and more advanced fabrication technology is developed, such as ink-jet printing

In market, LCD means passive matrix LCDs which increase TN (Twisted Nematic), STN (Super Twisted Nematic), or FSTN (Film Compensated STN) LCD Displays. It is a kind of earliest and lowest cost display technology.

LCD screens are still found in the market of low cost watches, calculators, clocks, utility meters etc. because of its advantages of low cost, fast response time (speed), wide temperature range,  low power consumption, sunlight readable with transflective or reflective polarizers etc.  Most of them are monochrome LCD display and belong to passive-matrix LCDs.

TFT LCDs have capacitors and transistors. These are the two elements that play a key part in ensuring that the TFT display monitor functions by using a very small amount of energy without running out of operation.

Normally, we say TFT LCD panels or TFT screens, we mean they are TN (Twisted Nematic) Type TFT displays or TN panels, or TN screen technology. TFT is active-matrix LCDs, it is a kind of LCD technologies.

TFT has wider viewing angles, better contrast ratio than TN displays. TFT display technologies have been widely used for computer monitors, laptops, medical monitors, industrial monitors, ATM, point of sales etc.

Actually, IPS technology is a kind of TFT display with thin film transistors for individual pixels. But IPS displays have superior high contrast, wide viewing angle, color reproduction, image quality etc. IPS screens have been found in high-end applications, like Apple iPhones, iPads, Samsung mobile phones, more expensive LCD monitors etc.

Both TFT LCD displays and IPS LCD displays are active matrix displays, neither of them can produce color, there is a layer of RGB (red, green, blue) color filter in each LCD pixels to make LCD showing colors. If you use a magnifier to see your monitor, you will see RGB color. With switch on/off and different level of brightness RGB, we can get many colors.

Neither of them can’t release color themselves, they have relied on extra light source in order to display. LED backlights are usually be together with them in the display modules as the light sources. Besides, both TFT screens and IPS screens are transmissive, it will need more power or more expensive than passive matrix LCD screens to be seen under sunlight.  IPS screens transmittance is lower than TFT screens, more power is needed for IPS LCD display.

TrendForce indicates, border controls and lockdowns have led to a disruption of logistics and labor due to the impact of the pandemic in the past two years. In order to avoid production and shipment gridlock, branded manufacturers overstocked from distribution channels to components. However, as logistics and transportation conditions have improved, previously prepared materials have subsequently arrived in relevant warehouses or ports. As pandemic induced demand subsides, terminal sales have suffered due to rising global inflation and the Russian-Ukrainian war. As a result, the inventory problem continues to deteriorate and all aspects of the overall supply chain has entered red alert.

Since this type of situation applied not only to a single application, utilization rate is reduced whether it is Gen5, primarily used in producing laptops, or large-size LCD monitors and TVs. None of the large generational fabs were spared. TrendForce indicates that the utilization rate of Gen5 to Gen7.5 is expected to decrease by 7.7% percentage points to 63.7% and the utilization rate of Gen8 to Gen10.5 will decrease by 7 percentage points to 75% in 3Q22. More than 90% of the Gen10.5 utilization rate used to produce TVs is expected to drop by 17.8 percentage points QoQ, which also highlights the continuing pessimistic demand for TV panels in 3Q22.

As far as panel makers are concerned, depreciation and amortization pressure on Chinese panel makers is more severe than that of other panel makers due to the construction of new factories. In addition, looking at total shipments of larger-sized applications (TVs, monitor panels, and notebooks), Chinese panel makers account for more than half the market, so when the bottom drops out, impact on these companies will be greater than on competitors. Looking at the three leading Chinese panel manufacturers, although BOE’s capacity allocation is very flexible, a drop of 4 percentage points in overall utilization rate cannot be ruled out in 3Q22. At the same time, China Star Optoelectronics (CSOT) and Huike Optoelectronics (HKC) will not only readjust their older factories in 3Q22 but also slow the rate at which new factories ramp up. The overall operating watermark of these two panel manufacturers is estimated to decrease by 13.3 and 7.4 percentage points, respectively.

Although the pressure of depreciation and amortization on Taiwanese manufacturer AUO is small, in response to changes in market demand, the company had already started production adjustment in 2Q22. It is expected to continue implementing this strategy in 3Q22 with overall utilization rate falling to 50%. On the other hand, Innolux expects overall utilization to drop by 6.7 percentage points QoQ. Japanese panel manufacturer Sharp is at a relative disadvantage in terms of overhead, and its customer concentration is too high. Its major branded clients have canceled orders, allowing inventory to stack up quickly. Therefore, Sharp has only just announced that it will begin to aggressively scale-down in its Japanese production line in July. In turn, the company’s overall utilization rate decreased by 26.3 percentage points to 59.3% in 3Q22. LG Display, a Korean panel maker, is expected to maintain a similar operating level as in 2Q22 after a sustained contraction in LCD production capacity due to a strategic shift.

TrendForce indicates, if panel makers do not wish to face the risk of high inventories at the beginning of 2023, they should maintain reduced operations in 4Q22 in order to eliminate existing panel inventory. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the utilization rate of LCD Gen5 (including) and above large generational fabs will maintain the same level of operation as in 3Q22. In the past, production cuts were the main response whenever the market was oversupplied. However, with future production capacity still growing, the speed at which brands deplete their inventories and global political and economic trends will be key factors affecting the future display market. If market conditions continue to deteriorate, it cannot be ruled out that the industry will face another reshuffle, setting off a further wave of mergers and acquisitions.

AMOLED Technology and Market Status—points out that the display panel industry has initiated plans for large-generation fabs that manufacture OLED panels. The migration of the OLED display technology to larger generations is driven by the recent improvements in related process technologies and materials. Also, brands have also been pushing for the adoption of OLED for larger display products. TrendForce forecasts that by 2025, the penetration rate of OLED panels among IT products will reach 2.8% on account of the gradual deployment of the supporting panel production capacity. Then, the OLED penetration rate in the IT segment is expected to take off noticeably in 2026, coming to 5.2%.

The adoption of the OLED display technology among smartphones is on a gradual rise. According to TrendForce’s latest research, the penetration rate of smartphones that feature an OLED panel (regardless of whether the OLED panel is the rigid, flexible, or foldable type) is projected to climb from around 47.7% in 2022 to 50.8% in 2023. Then, by 2026, the penetration will climb above 60%.

According to TrendForce’s latest research, shipments of Mini LED backlit automotive display modules are estimated to total around 140,000 units this year because of their use by European, Chinese, and US carmakers.

Ennostar’s subsidiary Epistar and PlayNitride’s wholly-owned subsidiary PlayNitride Display have announced that they have teamed up to build a production line for 6-inch Micro LED epi-wafers. Looking at the latest progress in the development of Micro LED, large-sized displays are regarded as the forerunners to the more advanced end products. Even though Micro LED has unresolved technological bottlenecks and cost-related issues, TrendForce is optimistic that this technology will eventually be adopted for the development of different kinds of displays and end products. Examples include transparent AR smart glasses, displays for wearable devices like smartwatches, automotive displays such as those embedded in a smart cockpit, and other transparent display products. Furthermore, the latest efforts in product development will likely create new high-end applications for Micro LED. TrendForce currently forecasts that the value of the market for Micro LED chips used in displays will reach US$542 million in 2024. Afterwards, the market will experience soaring growth starting in 2025 on account of the maturation of technologies.

BOE has become the largest shareholder in HC Semitek following a RMB 2.1 billion capital investment deal, and they are now in a partnership with respect to the development of Micro/Mini LED businesses. BOE has been involved in Micro/Mini LED since 2017 and now possesses related offerings such as displays and backlight solutions. In 2020, BOE established BOE MLED Technology as a subsidiary dedicated to the R&D and manufacturing of Micro/Mini LED products. As for HC Semitek, it is a major Chinese LED chip supplier and has an overarching presence across the LED chip industry chain. Hence, it produces not only LED chips but also LED epi wafers, sapphire substrates, etc. According to the data from market intelligence firm TrendForce, HC Semitek took fourth place in the 2021 ranking of LED chip suppliers by external sales revenue. Besides this achievement, HC Semitek is also at the forefront of advanced LED technologies including Micro/Mini LED. In a ranking of LED chip suppliers based on the revenue that is solely from sales of Mini LED chips, HC Semitek is currently in third place following Epistar and San’an.