Did we ever confirm the LG Display agreement with UDC only covers electronics, and LG Chem would need their own agreement with UDC for OLED?
UDC has a material supply agreement with LG Chem for lighting.
SEOUL -- LG Chem will fire up a new production line for OLED lighting panels in 2017 that could trigger the widespread adoption of this cutting-edge technology. The company will be able to lower prices by some 90%, so that a 10-by-10cm panel could sell for around $5.
The South Korean chemical company is investing 200 billion won ($184 million) to install a fifth-generation production line that can fabricate the OLEDs on glass substrates measuring 125-by-110cm.
That is roughly eight times as large as the substrates that LG Chem now uses on its existing line for OLED panels. The company already has developed techniques to improve yields, and it aggressively uses materials manufactured in-house, so with these larger substrates it will be able to boost productivity and significantly lower its costs.
OLED lighting panels consume far less power than incandescent bulbs and last longer than fluorescent lighting. Unlike regular LED lights they can be made thin and bendable, and since they also generate less heat, eliminating the need for heat sinks, they lend themselves to a range of design possibilities.
Other companies including global lighting leader Philips and Japan's Toshiba and Konica Minolta also manufacture OLED light panels. But because the panels are now so expensive they have found only limited application, such as in smartphone displays.
Just a reminder, Maxwell and Valeo have been working together since 2007...
Valeo and Maxwell Technologies Agree to Collaboratively Develop Ultracapacitor-Based Energy Storage System for Hybrid Autos
Next-Gen Volvo S60 Polestar First Drive -MotorTrend
Step on the gas and a Valeo Gen3 R70 electric supercharger spools up 70,000 rpm, drawing a peak power of 7 kilowatts from a 48-volt ultracapacitor pack in the trunk. (The ultracaps are topped up via the alternator and a DC-to-DC converter primarily during vehicle deceleration.)
So you can probably count on seeing an S60/V60 Polestar variant packing this engine within the next few years. After that, imagine pairing it with the electrification for 500-plus horsepower applications in larger vehicles (X5 M-fighting XC90 Polestar?).
Accounts receivable is way up. Sales were above expectations at the end of q4 as companies stocked up before year end.
Ioxus should be taken as a competitor when (if) they do a capital raise and build out more production capacity. Until then it's nice that they are publicizing ultracapacitors.
Revenue is guided lower but expenses are as well. With the reduction in OpEx and guided gross margins they are actually guiding to in-line eps for q1. They can have a reduction in revenue for the full year and still meet or beat full year eps forecast as well. Not saying it's what they are doing but this is what I would do if I wanted to make the company an acquisition target (or just more profitable).
I checked a recent report which put Samsung 2014 at 166 million displays at $44 = $7.3 billion. 2015 forecast is 223 million at $38 = $8.5 billion. OLED-A (Barry Young came from DisplaySearch) had an interesting post last week where they really trashed DisplaySearch. By the way, $50 million in license fees / $7.3 billion = 0.7%.
Cooters, if they were getting recurring license fees in LG contract they probably wouldn't have used the word "upfront".
There's a consensus that LG will pay less under the new contract. I agree that at higher volumes they will pay less probably through volume discounts but if they were paying less on current volume why wouldn't they have signed a contract a year ago and saved all that money?
They aren't going to sell very many $6,000 TVs. In order to sell 600k, the price might need to be closer to $2,000. If UDC were to get 5% of that it would be $60 million in revenue compared to around $35 million in 2014. If LG sells 1.5 million in 2016 that would be a big number for UDC. To the point of the original question, it's also worth noting that while UDC royalty will probably be a percentage of sales, material revenue is not.
One of the better questions on this board for a while. OLED material content is lower than material content in an LCD. There is also less labor required to produce OLED than LCD. The biggest cost drivers are the upfront fixed cost of the equipment and yield / throughput efficiency. Equipment costs are declining rapidly as more equipment is built and installed at more manufacturers. LG's TV volume has been too low to get a good answer so far. There is more data from Samsung. Depending on how much of the phone display you consider the display, UDC content (material and license fees) is probably between 2 to 5%. It may be a slightly higher percentage for TV and there are other OLED materials which are not from UDC but it's not the largest part of the cost.
On January 16 2015, 20 units of King Long XMQ6106AGHEV11 are delivered to Haikou Liulong Touring Bus Company. The batch of buses are equipped with plug-in fuel-electric hybrid technology that are fuel efficient, low noise and fittable for local operation condition.
The batch of XMQ6106AGHEV11 buses have been optimized based on the operation condition of large load and frequent starts and stops. Specifically, the idle-stop technology sustainably reduces fuel consumption by stoping engine when in low speed condition; the brake energy storage device recovers the braking energy; the parallel connection of the lithium battery stack and super capacitor enhances the battery capacitor that increase the millage.
The key part of the Kateeva-Sumitomo announcement is this:
This Kateeva/Sumitomo partnership is intentionally non-exclusive. Its broader aim is to equip the global display industry with novel tools and technologies to help mainstream OLED TVs. Kateeva and Sumitomo are free to partner with others.
You make a good point, blueflame. If JCI doesn't get their design win in 2018 they probably won't start producing them like they are hoping.
A couple points on this..
1. Production of the system is slated for 2018 where they hope to get it in "a model in Europe". So, like maybe 2 years after Maxwell-Corning ultracap product.
2. The storage capacity of a lithium titanate battery is much lower than a regular lithium ion battery.
3. It boasts 10,000 charge-discharge cycles compared to 1 million for an ultracapacitor.
4. The system will cost "hundreds of dollars" but less than the "thousands extra for a hybrid electric" which sounds like more than the $200 given by Fink for the ultracap system.
So, by your logic JCI is admitting their current systems aren't the answer and are grasping at straws by hoping to come up with a system to compete with Maxwell-Corning 2 years later that lasts 1/10th as long at a higher cost.
There was a Korean article from Dec. 15 which said M2 went into "test operation" in November and that this phase usually takes 2-3 months so they are expecting "full scale production" with "100% uptime" probably in late January. The early 65" and soon 77" sets are probably coming from this test production phase. This timing would seem to coincide with getting inventory built and shipped to allow for the rumored volume release of the newly announced 2015 models beginning in late spring.