Skip to main content

Samsung Targeting AMOLED Future with LCD 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.

  • house70
    Can't wait for the AMOLED TVs. Too bad they'll be really expensive, though, at least initially.
    Reply
  • edlivian
    just start producing 60" amoled displays already, i need it to replace the 60" lcd I got hanging on the wall
    Reply
  • 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 :P..
    Reply
  • IndignantSkeptic
    Why can't LCD just die already!
    Reply
  • nukemaster
    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).
    Reply
  • TeraMedia
    @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.
    Reply
  • mikewong
    Any 30" AMOLED 4k monitors for computer soon?
    Reply
  • wiyosaya
    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. ;)
    Reply
  • wiyosaya
    9349456 said:
    @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.
    Reply
  • cmartin011
    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..
    Reply