As I recently noted in a seminar, the only constant that we can count on is change. Nowhere is this more accurate than with display technologies. We are currently immersed in what I call the flat panel wars with plummeting panel prices at the retail level. We have seen LCD prices for 37-inch displays sell for under $800 and 42-inch plasma displays from major manufacturers for $1000 or less in weekend circulars in key cities across the nation. This decline in prices is expected to continue and while this has an effect on the manufacturers of these products, the price erosion in the market has an even greater effect on the development of new display technologies trying to keep abreast of the decline in terms of their manufacturing cost profiles.

Alan Brawn
Insight Media Consultant

One example is SED technology, or surface conduction electron-emitter displays, that has been shown at selected shows for the last few years by the recently disbanded joint venture between Canon and Toshiba. SED has shown great image quality with CRT-like performance in a flat form factor. Like CRTs, SEDs are self-emitting displays that use the collision of electrons with a phosphor-coated screen to create an image. SED provides the same fast video response and high contrast as CRTs, but because they do not require electron beams, huge deflection yokes, and complicated circuitry, SED is able to combine a slim body design with high-definition, low-distortion imaging performance. I can tell you first hand that the demonstrations that have been conducted show SED to have great potential. But now for the "bad" news.

It has been well chronicled that Canon has bought out Toshiba’s share in the joint venture ostensively to avoid lawsuits in the USA, which is another story altogether. Basically this leaves Canon to go it alone and try to drive down manufacturing costs to permit SED to compete with LCD and PDP technology. This moving target has caused them to review their plans, but as of this writing they still plan to bring out SED displays in Japan only in late 2007. The issue is one of manufacturing cost. When SED first became the next great hope of display technologies, a 42-inch plasma was selling for nearly $3,000 in the USA, but now, it is down to one third of that price. Is it reasonable to assume SED has been able to reduce it’s as-yet unproven manufacturing costs by a factor of three? I think not.

The next example is FED (Field Emission Display) technology from the folks at Sony. FED operates using similar principles as SED and offers the same benefits over LCD and PDP panels, such as superior visibility of moving images and lower power consumption. Sony recently announced a new company for their FED technology called Field Emission Technologies Inc. (FET Inc.). Sony invested about $22M, 63.5% of which will be financed by the Tokyo-based technology "carve-out" fund represented by TechGate Investment. Sony will invest the remaining 36.5%. This financing method is used to spinout a business from a company with the support of that company - a relatively new trend in Japan. Third parties typically own the majority of the equity to enable independent operation from the parent company.

FET Inc. announced on April 9 that it has developed a 19.2-inch high-resolution panel by employing FED technology. A company spokesman claims they "expect demand to be created for industrial and office use from broadcast stations and game manufacturers." The company plans to launch products by 2009 and will keep an eye on demand trends to review its mass production lineup.

Sony claims they intend to review the feasibility of FED technology in 18 months, however. If potential applications look promising as developed by FET Inc., Sony may decide to re-absorb the company back into the parent and move developments along at a faster pace.

The likelihood of this is not great since it would compete directly with OLED, which Sony has positioned as a future mainstream technology (they announced plans to commercialize an 11" OLED-TV just this week). A Sony spokesman says, "The company can do business independently from Sony. Its mission is to propagate FED technology. The fact that the third party fund heavily committed the company is the proof of the value of the technology."

I hope they are right and that FED and SED have a life in the universe of display technologies, but I have concerns. SED’ chances have been greatly dimished as it struglles over IP control. And, has Sony forgotten the $100M+ it invested in Candescent Technologies not so long agao - an aborted FED start-up?

FED and SED technologies, once the darling of people like me, has hit major obstacles mostly in the area of manufacturing costs and this is exacerbated by the rapid decline of LCD and PDP flat panel prices. This has impeded the progress in the development of these and other display technologies. It is still unclear if SED or FED can be viable alternatives, but the deck looks pretty stacked aganst it.