I think your comments are confusing.
What leads you to believe that PANL WOLED materials are targeted at LCD BLU and not LG's WOLED+COLORFILTER (non-LCD) technology?
Furthermore, Samsung RGB direct emission pixel technology (also non-LCD) is highly likely using one or more PANL OLED emitter materials and this is the original market application that PANL was targetting.
Perhaps we are getting confused between two technology changes:
1) White OLED backlighting for LCD TV's which is what PANL is pursuing to replace white LED backlighting for LCD TV's in which market CREE has some, if limited exposure.
2) LCD TV as the display technology with multi-color OLED TV such as those displayed by LG and Samsung at CES 2012.
For (1) LED backlighting is usually always on and from the edge. A clever diffuser plate creates uniform intensity across the whole screen, at the expense of allowing a little light to seep through on the blacks. An alternative is a coarse array of LEDs behind the finer LCD pixels, these LEDs are individually addressable thereby allowing improved contrast. This is more expensive than edge backlighting as it uses more LEDs. PANL's approach is to attack this latter niche with a sheet of white OLED, the technical and commercial advantages opportunities in this market are not clear to some.
(2) PANL is not attempting to address this market.
The remainder could include led displays like stadium score boards, signals and signs,and it may be a total revenue figure including sic power and communication devices. In the latest call they indicate that they have qualified and produced some products on the larger size and have the capability to do the rest, but any gain in lower production cost would not offset the cost of the new or converted equipment needed, at these low capacity utilization levels. I don't know for sure they can be believed, but I have no reason not to.
Denverdude beat me to the post while I was checking on this.
So why does he state 'over 3/4' is lighting, instead of 80%, 90%, etc. That comment suggests lighting is roughly 75% and so the remainder must be BLU since that is the other main LED application.
In any case, it's clear from the call transcript that BLU is a minor component of CREE sales. So now the question is how fast will lighting revenues grow and how well CREE reduces product costs. I am concerned that there the announced delay in the 150mm line is not simply to limit capacity but to possibly resolve process issues. Hopefully I am wrong.
>You're forgetting there is no driving argument for OLED TV's at any prices level. They will appeal only to a customer willing to pay extra $$ for the extra "cool" factor.<
That's funny. No driving argument for OLED TV? At any price level?
OLED has many superior performance aspects in TV applications. Two of these are essentially infinite contrast and extremely low pixel switching times. There are many others.
And longer-term, it is quite probable that OLED will completely displace LCD on a manufacturing-cost basis. Check out this report for more info.
Packaged LEDs for BLUs represents ~60% of total LED revenues. And you say CREE has a relatively small exposure to that market application?
Define small. Better yet, show me a link supporting your statement. Wait let me guess... it's internal information right?