Displays have existed since the mid-20th century, with TV broadcasts and CRT delivery. Now displays are omnipresent, used in just about very consumer, commercial and military 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 can be constructed in pieces.
Over the last 100 years, displays transitioned thru three technologies:
- CRTs thru the end of the 20th century
- LCDs from the late 1990s to the present
- OLEDs from ~2005 to the present
On the horizon, are MicroLEDs, with 100s of companies solving technical and manufacturing issues to produce displays that outperform the current technologies. Each advancement in display technology was accompanied by a change in regional dominance, first the US produced the majority of CRTs, but as demand increased and color was introduced, Japan shared the production volume; second with the advent of active matrix LCDs (AMLCD) in the early 2000s, Japan became me 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, Korean companies 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 slow growth for AMLCDs.
The US has no production facilities because of the huge capital requirement, upwards of $4B per fab and the relatively low return on capital, which has averaged 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 OLEDs, Korea and China split production evenly.
The concentration in the source of display production raises the issue of whether the existence of displays in just about every product will negatively affect the US economy or its military readiness. Given China’s competitiveness should something be done to minimize the US dependency on China’s display industry?
- For AMLCDs, China’s position remains unopposed, and their share is likely to grow as the two Taiwan companies, AUO and Innolux are changing strategies to offset their continued losses.
- For OLEDs, China and Korea share the market and the larger OLED panel makers are expanding their capacity, creating a healthy environment where both compete on technology, where Korea is the leader and cost, where China is the leader. The effect is positive, giving the market access to the best panels at the lowest cost. Giving preference to one region would only reduce choice and increase costs and limit access to new solutions.
Competition in a particular market has always been a positive for the consumer, and in the case of OLEDs, 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 in the supply chain – UDC provides all the red and green emitters, Corning supplies the glass and Applied Material, the production tools. Moreover, both UDC and Applied are building deposition tools with capex per tool in the $500m to $750m range. There are other US companies like EMS (Merck), Kateeva, and Oracle also deeply involved in the OLED industry. Reducing the volume or even slowing down the change will negatively impact these and other US companies.
Limiting consumer/customer choice to a small number of suppliers would have a detrimental impact on competitive conditions in the United States. Removing a significant supplier’s products from the market would decrease competition, leading to risks of insufficient supply, increased prices, and decreased innovation, and would likely reduce consumer choice, less suppliers and price increases.
In a rapidly evolving technological landscape, it is vital for the US to stay competitive on the global stage. By sourcing display technologies from China and Korea, US 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 US 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 US consumers, businesses and the government.
Barry Young has been a notable presence in the display world since 1997, when he helped grow DisplaySearch, a research firm that quickly became the go-to source for display market information. As one of the most influential analysts in the flat-panel display industry, Barry continued his impact after the NPD Group acquired DisplaySearch in 2005. He is the managing director of the OLED Association (OLED-A), an industry organization that aims to promote, market, and accelerate the development of OLED technology and products.
