Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Samsung Targeting AMOLED Future with LCD Spinoff

By - Source: IHS | B 21 comments

Separating its LCD business from the rest company of the company will help Samsung to improve the competitiveness of its LCD operations, IHS said. However, that may not be the actual reason for the spinoff.

Market researchers from IHS said that an opportunity to dominate active matrix organic light emitting diode (AMOLED) displays is the true long-term benefit to Samsung. Samsung said last week that it will be spinning off its LCD business into a new company that will be called Samsung Display. IHS speculates that Samsung Display will then merge with Samsung Mobile Display, a joint venture between Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI, which manufactures LCD and AMOLED displays.

“Samsung’s LCD division is the world’s second-largest LCD panel maker in terms of unit shipments, while Samsung Mobile Display is the top supplier of AMOLED displays,” said Sweta Dash, an analyst at IHS. “A merger would allow the new company to combine its OLED expertise with internal prodigious experience and market influence in the LCD segment. Because of its myriad advantages, OLED represents the future of display technology, representing a huge growth opportunity in the coming years.”

IHS believes that AMOLED has a greater growth opportunity than LCD over the next few years. The company forecasts an annual growth rate of 29 percent between 2011 to 2015 for AMOLED, while LCDs may only gain an annual average of 5.8 percent for LCDs during the same time frame. In 2011, Samsung Mobile Display controlled the AMOLED space with a market share of 85 percent. LG was second with 15 percent. In large-size LCD displays, Samsung held a 22.9 percent share and LG 25.8 percent, IHS said.

Discuss
Display all 21 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 16 Hide
    house70 , February 29, 2012 2:24 PM
    Can't wait for the AMOLED TVs. Too bad they'll be really expensive, though, at least initially.
Other Comments
  • 16 Hide
    house70 , February 29, 2012 2:24 PM
    Can't wait for the AMOLED TVs. Too bad they'll be really expensive, though, at least initially.
  • -6 Hide
    edlivian , February 29, 2012 2:26 PM
    just start producing 60" amoled displays already, i need it to replace the 60" lcd I got hanging on the wall
  • 0 Hide
    fazers_on_stun , February 29, 2012 2:27 PM
    ^ From what I've read, LG's 4-LED solution is superior since apparently the blue LED doesn't emit as much light as the red & green ones, so Samsung has to make it significantly larger to partially compensate.

    But ditto on the price - I'm expecting $10K or more for a 55" model :p ..
  • 6 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , February 29, 2012 2:56 PM
    Why can't LCD just die already!
  • 3 Hide
    nukemaster , February 29, 2012 4:58 PM
    IndignantSkepticWhy can't LCD just die already!

    Maybe because it is one of the more cost effective displays on the market right now.

    Do you want a cheap computer screen to run you 100-200 or 1000+(most likely FAR more until costs come down) for the cheap models?

    Do not get me wrong, i LIKE oled since it has very wide viewing and nice dark blacks(they are off), but until it comes into consumer prices, i think LCD will stick around for a while.

    All this said, i still do NOT recommend super cheap LCDs(and you should almost always check them out in person if you can), but everyone has a price they are willing to pay, so a 600+ dollar monitor is not for everyone(but sure improves image quality/color).
  • 5 Hide
    TeraMedia , February 29, 2012 5:10 PM
    @fazers: The chief problem with the blue OLEDs is that they still die out too quickly. LG's solution is to use 4 white OLEDs (which, btw, is based on either a blue OLED or a UV OLED, and hence fades just as fast) and then put 3 color filters and a clear filter over them to provide R,G,B and pure white. Still not enough light, and the filtering means more heat and more energy required.

    I actually prefer the route Sony is taking with their Crystal LED program. Rather than blue OLEDs that fade, they are using straight-out R, G and B LEDs that are very small. They avoid the lifespan problems of blue OLEDs, and the shortcomings of the LG WOLED approach.
  • 2 Hide
    mikewong , February 29, 2012 6:05 PM
    Any 30" AMOLED 4k monitors for computer soon?
  • 6 Hide
    wiyosaya , February 29, 2012 7:23 PM
    fazers_on_stun^ From what I've read, LG's 4-LED solution is superior since apparently the blue LED doesn't emit as much light as the red & green ones, so Samsung has to make it significantly larger to partially compensate.But ditto on the price - I'm expecting $10K or more for a 55" model ..

    I really hate to disappoint you, but Samsung has already announced that its 55" OLED TV will be much cheaper than $8,000 and in fact, will be only slightly more expensive than its premium LED-LCD/Plasma TVs. ;) 
  • 5 Hide
    wiyosaya , February 29, 2012 7:52 PM
    Quote:
    @fazers: The chief problem with the blue OLEDs is that they still die out too quickly. LG's solution is to use 4 white OLEDs (which, btw, is based on either a blue OLED or a UV OLED, and hence fades just as fast) and then put 3 color filters and a clear filter over them to provide R,G,B and pure white. Still not enough light, and the filtering means more heat and more energy required.

    I actually prefer the route Sony is taking with their Crystal LED program. Rather than blue OLEDs that fade, they are using straight-out R, G and B LEDs that are very small. They avoid the lifespan problems of blue OLEDs, and the shortcomings of the LG WOLED approach.

    :lol:  You must be very picky??

    In excess of 100,000 hour lifetime on LG's tech is not good enough??

    And 60,000 hours on blue pixels is not enough either??

    Just how much TV do you watch?? 60,000 hours is almost 7 years of continuous TV watching?

    Come on!! Get with the program and please stop spreading very dated information, thank you!!

    And, IMHO, Sony's Crystal LED approach will be significantly more expensive than OLEDs ever will be.
  • 2 Hide
    cmartin011 , February 29, 2012 8:41 PM
    How about the SED tech? canon sucks for not bringing these to market. well i am all for oled's i true only need a 40 inch hoping sooner that later. i alway loved my 4.5in AMOLED its so sharp and colors are so nice... hopefully they go with higher refresh rate with this tech true 120hz now they have High speed HDMI 1.4a..
  • 2 Hide
    wiyosaya , February 29, 2012 8:45 PM
    cmartin011How about the SED tech? canon sucks for not bringing these to market. well i am all for oled's i true only need a 40 inch hoping sooner that later. i alway loved my 4.5in AMOLED its so sharp and colors are so nice... hopefully they go with higher refresh rate with this tech true 120hz now they have High speed HDMI 1.4a..

    It wasn't Canon. It was an IP company that blocked SED. Patent Trolls! :sarcastic: 
  • -3 Hide
    IndignantSkeptic , March 1, 2012 12:36 AM
    Does SED produce X-rays because it is similar to CRT?
  • 2 Hide
    Mhawk13 , March 1, 2012 12:52 AM
    Samsung make a notebook/ultrabook with a oled screen already!
  • -1 Hide
    captaincharisma , March 1, 2012 2:20 AM
    IndignantSkepticWhy can't LCD just die already!


    more like why isn't plasma dead yet
  • 1 Hide
    blazorthon , March 1, 2012 4:33 AM
    I have to say, my 15 year old CRT monitors still look great today and have seen consistent usage throughout their long life times. I have never had a problem with them never had to replace a part of them, and they were better than any LCD that was around for several years after I got them at a reasonable price. Even now, they have better picture than some of my LCD monitors, but they are kinda big and a little harder on the eyes.

    I don't think that everyone had as good of an experience with their CRTs as I have, but my cheapy CRT monitors are my favorites right now. If only CRT technology had evolved instead of being replaced by LCD. It could have been built with safer components and such with current technology and could be made very thin (several years ago, there were a few TVs (27" or so) that were only 5" thick. That was several years ago, what could we do with them now? Two inches thick on ~20" monitors, maybe even thinner?

    Oh well, I suppose it was just cheaper to go with LCD rather than evolving CRT.

    These were 27" TVs and anyone with experience with CRTs should know that the larger the screen, the thick it is too. A smaller screen made with the same tech that made those TVs could have been thinner. I think that there were also some 4" CRT TVs or monitors as well.

    I bet we could have CRTs that aren't too much thicker than current desktop monitors. We might not be able to make it as slim as most mobile machines or all-in-one machines, but for a regular monitor or TV we should be able to shrink down an evolved CRT down to around 2 or 2.5" thick, if not thinner.

    My only problem with my CRTs are that they aren't flat screen displays like my LCDs. There are flat screen CRTs, but mine aren't. Like I said, old cheapys. CRTs also don't have scaling problems with different resolutions. If you have a 1900x1200 display at 1080p, there is some scaling problems and it won't look as good as a comparable 1080p display at 1080p nor as good as it would look at it's own native resolution of 1900x1200. CRTs don't have this problem. I think that they are the only common display type that doesn't have this problem, possibly excluding some even older display technologies.

    CRTs could also use a lot less power than they used to use if we made them with modern technology. Had we evolved them instead of abandoning them, maybe things would be a little different today. CRTs are still capable of refresh rates far in excess of similarly priced LCDs and their contrast and blacks were better too.

    Really, I don't like LCD as much as CRT. OLED and the like seem to be much better than LCD, but they just aren't as common for monitors and TVs, if there even are any on the computer/TV display markets right now.

    At least with LED, it has some serious advantages. It uses a lot less power than the other common display tech we have going today. Plasma is nice, but it uses too much power and looks worse if it isn't in a dark room. LED and LCD and CRT aren't as bad with lighted rooms and even direct sunlight.
  • 2 Hide
    alidan , March 1, 2012 4:51 AM
    nukemasterMaybe because it is one of the more cost effective displays on the market right now.Do you want a cheap computer screen to run you 100-200 or 1000+(most likely FAR more until costs come down) for the cheap models?Do not get me wrong, i LIKE oled since it has very wide viewing and nice dark blacks(they are off), but until it comes into consumer prices, i think LCD will stick around for a while.All this said, i still do NOT recommend super cheap LCDs(and you should almost always check them out in person if you can), but everyone has a price they are willing to pay, so a 600+ dollar monitor is not for everyone(but sure improves image quality/color).


    from my understanding, cheap oled is better than expensive lcd.
    either make the old monitors bigger
    or make the old so small that you get a consumer viable 1000 dpi+ headset monitor, with 1 screen per eye.

    i dont care which it is i just want it now.

    wiyosayaYou must be very picky??In excess of 100,000 hour lifetime on LG's tech is not good enough??And 60,000 hours on blue pixels is not enough either??Just how much TV do you watch?? 60,000 hours is almost 7 years of continuous TV watching?Come on!! Get with the program and please stop spreading very dated information, thank you!!And, IMHO, Sony's Crystal LED approach will be significantly more expensive than OLEDs ever will be.


    100000 = 11 yearsish
    60000 = 6 yearsish

    and all the while, the blue is degrading at a faster rate than all the other colors.

    to be completely honest here. if crystal lcd can last 15+ years, and is at least as high of quality as oled... it will be the tv that everyone wants. i mean you have to look at a tv as an expense over time and possible advancements in that same time frame. a large lcd or plasma tv today is really only a 5-7 year of use before they crap out on you to the point they are just... not a good option. old crt tvs could last 15-20years, and my old one i used for light gun games died at the 20 year mark, otherwise it still gave me a damn good picture, however we have a 48 inch plasma in the living room that 1080p that is i believe 6 years old, and i cant even look at it any more the thing is such a pos... 5 stuck pixels on read, and when ever there is black it had this red grain in it that just looks horrible.

    if crystal lcd can last a long time, well, for general home use i cant see 4k becoming the thing to have unless tvs jump to the 100inch + range and are affordable.

    cmartin011How about the SED tech? canon sucks for not bringing these to market. well i am all for oled's i true only need a 40 inch hoping sooner that later. i alway loved my 4.5in AMOLED its so sharp and colors are so nice... hopefully they go with higher refresh rate with this tech true 120hz now they have High speed HDMI 1.4a..


    sed, the tech that would have been a stop gap between all the good features of a crt, mixed with the benefits of a lcd... back when a 40 inch lcd cost real money, an sed would have cost twice that, and also been well over twice as good. however they were sued into not releasing it for so long, and by the time they could a decent lcd that is 50 inch is now carrying around money, and the price still hasn't come down on the sed. i would pay what i need to for a 1920x1200 sed monitor at 24-27 inch, but thats because i never wanted an lcd, i see the flaws in it every time i use it, i see that the color on the screen changes if my head moves a bit, light bleeding on the top and bottom, more of a dark grey that a true black... and i sure as hell wasnt paying over 1000$ for an lcd monitor that i deam acceptable, knowing that in 2-4 years, i would need a new one due to lcds not built to last long

    i understand why thy didnt release the sed, but i still feal there is a strong enough market for it.

  • 1 Hide
    blazorthon , March 1, 2012 2:56 PM
    Everyone quoting hours into years, also think about how many people leave their TV on 24/7 for six to 15 years. So long as you turn it off at night, that 600000 should translate into around 9 to 11 years and the 100000 should go up to 15 to 17 years, not too bad.

    @alidan

    There are ways to fix Plasma displays. They don't always work, but if you get a program and connect a computer to it, then the program can try to fix the messed up pixels. My father had similar problems, but all was well after he tried this on his Plasma display. New plasma displays are supposed to be a lot better. Just goes to show that you shouldn't be an early-adopter of display technology unless you are willing to risk it.
  • 0 Hide
    ramprun , March 1, 2012 3:06 PM
    Quote:
    Sony's Crystal LED approach will be significantly more expensive than OLEDs ever will be.

    If you built a very robust LED panel and if Sony adopt the SOC upgrade approach that Samsung showed during CES 2012 then you can keep the same panel and just upgrade the chip. in the long run, it may be less expensive the OLED
  • 0 Hide
    blazorthon , March 1, 2012 4:18 PM
    ramprunIf you built a very robust LED panel and if Sony adopt the SOC upgrade approach that Samsung showed during CES 2012 then you can keep the same panel and just upgrade the chip. in the long run, it may be less expensive the OLED


    Most people don't want to open their TV to upgrade it. Can you imagine the huge amount of complaints from people who broke their TV trying to upgrade it? Besides, you would probably need to do some soldering and such, IMHO probably not the easiest upgrade to do even for more experienced people such as many of the Tom's forum goers. Even then, I don't think it would be cheaper than OLED unless it lasts around twice as long as OLED displays of the same price/quality/size.
  • 0 Hide
    rooni , March 2, 2012 3:59 AM
    blazorthonI have to say, my 15 year old CRT monitors still look great today and have seen consistent usage throughout their long life times. I have never had a problem with them never had to replace a part of them, and they were better than any LCD that was around for several years after I got them at a reasonable price. Even now, they have better picture than some of my LCD monitors, but they are kinda big and a little harder on the eyes.I don't think that everyone had as good of an experience with their CRTs as I have, but my cheapy CRT monitors are my favorites right now. If only CRT technology had evolved instead of being replaced by LCD. It could have been built with safer components and such with current technology and could be made very thin (several years ago, there were a few TVs (27" or so) that were only 5" thick. That was several years ago, what could we do with them now? Two inches thick on ~20" monitors, maybe even thinner?Oh well, I suppose it was just cheaper to go with LCD rather than evolving CRT.These were 27" TVs and anyone with experience with CRTs should know that the larger the screen, the thick it is too. A smaller screen made with the same tech that made those TVs could have been thinner. I think that there were also some 4" CRT TVs or monitors as well.I bet we could have CRTs that aren't too much thicker than current desktop monitors. We might not be able to make it as slim as most mobile machines or all-in-one machines, but for a regular monitor or TV we should be able to shrink down an evolved CRT down to around 2 or 2.5" thick, if not thinner.My only problem with my CRTs are that they aren't flat screen displays like my LCDs. There are flat screen CRTs, but mine aren't. Like I said, old cheapys. CRTs also don't have scaling problems with different resolutions. If you have a 1900x1200 display at 1080p, there is some scaling problems and it won't look as good as a comparable 1080p display at 1080p nor as good as it would look at it's own native resolution of 1900x1200. CRTs don't have this problem. I think that they are the only common display type that doesn't have this problem, possibly excluding some even older display technologies.CRTs could also use a lot less power than they used to use if we made them with modern technology. Had we evolved them instead of abandoning them, maybe things would be a little different today. CRTs are still capable of refresh rates far in excess of similarly priced LCDs and their contrast and blacks were better too.Really, I don't like LCD as much as CRT. OLED and the like seem to be much better than LCD, but they just aren't as common for monitors and TVs, if there even are any on the computer/TV display markets right now.At least with LED, it has some serious advantages. It uses a lot less power than the other common display tech we have going today. Plasma is nice, but it uses too much power and looks worse if it isn't in a dark room. LED and LCD and CRT aren't as bad with lighted rooms and even direct sunlight.


    CRT is like staring into a running microwave all day long, not good for your eyes. OLED is the future.
Display more comments