After the start of the flat panel display, several new product groups came to the market. In many cases the display quality was important for the ultimate success or lack thereof in the market. For example, without the LCD there would be no notebook PCs.
Especially before the invention of the AMOLED display as a competitor in the mobile market space. There is the remaining, almost philosophical, question if anyone would have invested in the development of AMOLED displays without the large markets developed and dominated by LCDs?
From long experience in our industry, we know that competition is the strongest driver in developing better and better technologies. Any technological advantage translates into a market advantage that makes or breaks the manufacturing companies and associated brands. At this point in time, do you remember the James Bond Pulsar watch? Too power hungry, this device failed because of a display technology (ironically this was a LED display that we are now trying to use to lower energy consumption) that was not able to deliver on its promise. It took decades before electronic displays could take substantial market share from the mechanical watch face interface. Today, smartwatches are on the rise and continue to improve based on various technology improvements, including the displays.
For a long period of time the performance of the display was an important part of any marketing campaign. Think of TVs, projectors, notebooks, smartphones, tablets, and many more. Maybe in the future this will also extend to cars and smart watches, even though I think that we have reached the pinnacle of display importance. If you think this is too negative thinking for a “display man” to think this way, I have several arguments for this view. I will explain in more detail below.
Display Technology has Gotten Very Good
In the last ten years, the dominating LCD technology has matured to the point where improvements in viewing performance have become more and more marginal from one generation to the next. Think of the difference of STN versus TFT LCD in comparison to the difference of QD LCD versus LED LCD. Yes, it is still an noticeable performance increase, but the incremental viewing performance increase is getting smaller and smaller. On the same note, this is one of the difficulties for AMOLED to break into certain markets. With decreasing visual performance differences, AMOLED cannot charge high premiums when entering new markets. Devices where the display typically represents a smaller percentage of the BOM are a better target for AMOLED compared to devices where they are not. As we saw, it was easier for AMOLED to penetrate smart phones compared to TVs.
iPhone X vs Galaxy S9 image credit Macrumors.com
As a further example I want to use the knowledge of my colleague Ray Soneira from Displaymate. His definition and measurement of the Just Noticeable Color Difference (JNCD) shows that the latest smartphone displays from Samsung and Apple have values at or below 1 JNCD. This means a normal person cannot tell the difference from perfect any more. Yes, there are many other performance characteristics that may differentiate the displays from perfect, but first of all there is no agreed upon definition what a perfect display is and second, a consumer turns on the device and looks at the bright colors shown. Black levels may be the second factor in the consumer’s eye, but other values are more for the technologist than pushing the consumer from one display to another. We just expect today that the display looks darn good when we turn it on.
Image Demands are Leveling off
When we look at a device with a display today, there is no pure amazement on how wonderful the image is, “been there done that”. Consumers want to know what they can do with a device, rather than marvel at the screen image. Even outdoor viewability has gotten much better, even though this is the area where a new technology like microLED could raise the bar dramatically and take market share from LCD and or OLED.
Overall, devices do not differentiate themselves through the display they are using, even if brand marketing is still using it extensively. What we just saw with the first 4K UHD displays in a smartphone is pointing in this direction. Even the most technophile websites looked at a 5.5” 4K UHD display panel as complete overkill. Furthermore, the event of this technological breakthrough did not shift market share numbers significantly. Once you are good enough for the consumer, being better is more of an academic exercise than an important way to gain market share. Once marketing sees the little effect of their efforts, the focus on these topics will drop.
The next time we will see the use of technology driven marketing will be at the advent of the microLED display. We assume that, at that point, the microLED display will also create a JNCD <1 and the focus will be on power savings and daylight readability. These are not really attributes that consumers look at today.
Displays are becoming a commodity
After decades of investments into expensive display fabs, investments are viewed as just that, an investments. Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, these investment are not always made based on ROI figures but on national decisions to become a leader in the display industry. When Asian countries invest based on government backed loans, we can be sure that interest rates and actual payback are often negotiable. As a consequence, display manufacturers are selling to fill the factory, which leads to very aggressive pricing in times of low demand, with the hope of making up for it in times of higher demand.
Meanwhile, display fabs are moving to countries with low wages to gain a market advantage. Just look at Japan, the display leader of not so long ago. Displays being sold mainly on price shows you that the average display quality is good enough for most high volume applications.
Device functionality is becoming more important
On the other hand, the functionality of a device is becoming more important. How fast I can upload / download images and video to or from the social network of my choice is more important than the perfect display. If you do not believe that, just watch your offspring with a broken display being very content to use the device as long as Facebook still works. I know, this is a little of a stretch, but consumers are being less wowed by the display and start asking questions on what they can do with a device.
For example, the stories of the Apple Watch saving people’s life through their heart rate monitor may have a higher importance for the potential buyer than the question of whether it has an AMOLED or microLED display.
The touch functionality is an even more important feature of smartphones and tablets compared to the display. In a certain way, the touch functionality could be viewed as an integrated functionality of the display, but it does not refer to a better image or higher brightness. It is the whole package that persuades consumers to buy, not a single number of display resolution or contrast ratio.
This makes the Apple Store concept so intriguing. Put devices on the table and let consumers play with them as long as they want. These stores are white and bright, not the optimal set up to show the abilities of a display by any means. When you see the conversion rate of people buying devices after using them, it is pretty amazing.
All in all, I see a diminishing importance of display metrics and an increase of importance of how the device functions as a whole. Of course, there are many arguments against my viewpoint and by no means do I believe that we have reached the point where a display does not influence the buying decision of the consumer. I just believe that the importance of the display quality is slowly deteriorating. NH
