LA JOLLA, Calif., Feb. 19, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — In a study of what contributes to the success of the display industry, the OLED Association tracked the technology and the source of production from CRTs to LCDs, Plasma, OLEDs and now Micro LEDs. Displays have existed since the mid-20th century, when the delivery of TV signals to consumers were enabled by CRTs. Now displays are omnipresent, used in just about every consumer, commercial and miliary application. They have transitioned from the heavy, bulky, yet small screen TV to a plethora of sizes that range from the equivalent of a contact lens to a wall covering monitor that is constructed in pieces. Over the last 100 years, displays transitioned thru:
CRTs thru the end of the 20th centuryPlasma that came and went between the 1990s and the 2000sLCDs from the late 1990s to the presentOLEDs from ~2005 to the present
On the horizon, are MicroLEDs, with 100s of companies solving technical and manufacturing issues to produce displays that purportedly outperform current technologies. Each advancement was accompanied by a regional shift, first the US produced the majority of CRTs, but as demand increased and color was developed, Japan shared the production volume; second with the advent of active matrix LCDs (AMLCD), Japan became the leader and the US exited the market, third when AMLCDs moved into the larger monitor and TV market, and needed greater investment, the Japanese ceased growing and production leadership shifted to Korea backed up by Taiwan, fourth the Chinese entered the market and invested in the largest size display fabs, taking the production lead and fifth, Samsung anticipating the technology evolution exited AMLCDs by substituting OLEDs. In 2024, display revenue split 62%, AMLCD, 37% OLED and 1% other. Market researchers project future gains for OLEDS and stagnation for AMLCDs.
Display Revenue by Technology – 2022-2027e (US$ b)
Technology
2022
2023
2024
2025e
2026e
2027e
TFT LCD
79.5
75.8
81.2
83.7
83.9
83.8
AMOLED
42.1
44.7
48.2
50.6
52.5
54.5
AM EPD
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
OLEDoS
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.4
Micro LED
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.27
0.60
0.80
LEDoS
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
Others
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.0
2.3
Total
122.7
122.1
131.1
136.5
139.9
143.5
Source: Omdia, OLED-A
The US has no production facilities due largely to the huge capital requirement, upwards of $4b per fab and the relatively low return on capital, which has average 1-2% over the last 10 years.
In terms of AMLCD production, China has ~75% share and Taiwan has a 19% share, the remainder is in Japan, which is in the process of closing its display facilities. For AMOLEDs, Korea and China split production evenly. For MicroLEDs, the race is just beginning. The next table shows the regional revenue shares by year
Display Production by Regional Share – 2000-2025e
Region
2000
2010
2020
2025
China
0 %
5 %
35 %
65 %
Korea
10 %
20 %
30 %
22 %
Others
5 %
10 %
20 %
10 %
Japan
70 %
60 %
15 %
3 %
US
15 %
5 %
0 %
0 %
Total
100 %
100 %
100 %
100 %
Annual Display Revenue ($b)
80
100
125
137
Source: DisplaySearch, OLED-A
The concentration in regional production source raises the issue of how the US economy and its military readiness will be impacted. Given China’s competitiveness should something be done to minimize the US dependency on China’s display industry? The world’s largest economy needs a robust and competitive display industry and should be encouraging multiple suppliers. For AMLCDs, China’s position remains virtually unopposed, and their share is likely to grow as the two Taiwan companies, AUO and Innolux look to change strategies to offset their continued loses, but AMOLED demand and production is increasing, and the US needs to encourage regional competition.
Competition in a particular market has always been a positive for the consumer, and in the case of AMOLEDs, the addition of Chinese panel makers has led to lower costs, by ~30% or more. In terms of technology, Korean manufacturers added foldable displays, thinner devices due to the elimination of the polarizer, and lower power consumption with the use of LTPO, all after the Chinese entered the market. Taking away the availability of a 2nd or 3rd choice would narrow the level of improvement and raise prices.
While the US does not produce displays explicitly, many participate and encapsulation tools with capex per tool in the $500m to $750m range. There are other US companies like EMS (Merck), Kateeva, 3M and DuPont deeply involved in the OLED industry. Reducing the volume or even slowing down the change negatively impacts these and other US companies. Limiting consumer/customer choice to a small number of suppliers would hinder competitive conditions in the United States. Removing a significant supplier’s products from the market, risks insufficient supply, increased prices, and decreased innovation, and would likely reduce consumer choice.
In a rapidly evolving technological landscape, it is vital for the U.S. to stay competitive on the global stage. By sourcing display technologies from China and Korea, U.S. companies can focus on their core strengths such as software development, service integration, and innovative applications, rather than spending resources on manufacturing. This strategic allocation of resources allows U.S. firms to maintain their leadership in innovation and technology, positioning them favorably in the global market. In summary, displays are critical to the economy and have a long history of responding to both the technology and the regional production source. The benefits of multiple production sources are well understood and have typically led to positive economic conditions, to the benefit of U.S. consumers, businesses and the government.
China and Korea have invested heavily in research and development (R&D) and is at the forefront of several technological advancements in the display sector. By importing electronics, the U.S. can leverage these advancements without having to replicate the extensive R&D investments. This symbiotic relationship allows U.S. companies to integrate cutting-edge technology into their products and services, fostering innovation and maintaining a competitive edge in the global market.International trade is a cornerstone of global economic interdependence and cooperation. By engaging in trade with China, the U.S. can strengthen diplomatic and economic ties, fostering a mutually beneficial relationship. Healthy trade relations can lead to collaborative efforts in other areas such as climate change, healthcare, and global security. Moreover, trade can act as a bridge, promoting cultural exchange and mutual understanding between the two nations.Contrary to the perception that importing electronics undermines domestic jobs, trade with China creates opportunities including cost savings from importing affordable electronics that can be reinvested in other sectors such as services, logistics, and marketing, leading to job creation. Additionally, U.S. companies involved in the design, distribution, and sale of electronics can from the competitive edge provided by high-quality, low-cost products from China.
In summary, displays are critical to the economy and have a long history of changing both the technology and the regional production source. The potential of new technologies replacing the incumbent is material as evidenced by Apple’s[1] recent effort to take over production of all the displays it uses by switching to MicroLEDs. The effort turned out to be too early in the MicroLED development cycle, but it could be reinstated as the technology progresses. The benefits of multiple production sources are well understood and have typically led to positive economic conditions.
[1] Apple is currently the largest buyer of OLED displays
View original content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/oled-association–regional-competition-needed-for-a-healthy-display-industry-302380944.html
SOURCE OLED Association
Technology4 days ago
Technology4 days ago
Coin Market4 days ago