Apple’s Newest OLED Supplier

https://asianometry.substack.com/p/boe-technology-apples-next-oled-supplier

by type0 • 5 years ago

183 146 5 years ago

asianometry.substack.com

1cvmask• 5 years ago

Apple has a vested interest in giving less business to Samsung which it competes with on mobile phones and had also sued separately in the past for alleged copying the iPhone.

smoldesu• 5 years ago

It's a real shame too, Samsung displays are to die for. Say what you will about their chip manufacturing capabilities and phone business, their display fabrications are the real moneymaker.

killingtime74• 5 years ago

You don’t need to die, just buy a Samsung phone

aliyfarah• 5 years ago

Also probably related to Cook’s “secret deal” with the CCP to invest more in China.

tooltalk12• 5 years ago

I'm inclined to believe this. This was well under way for years and coordinated among Apple, BOE, and the CCP.

sumedh• 5 years ago

Shouldn't the US govt intervene if US companies are making such deals?

1-63• 5 years ago

Why does the US keep feeding the hand that bites them?

yyyk• 5 years ago

About BOE Technology:

"Two suppliers that make components for Apple in China employ forced labor, according to a report published Sunday. The Washington Post says BOE Technology Group, which supplies screens to Apple, and O-Film, which makes iPhone cameras, both use Uighur labor, either directly or through contractors. Apple lists both companies on its latest supplier list."

https://www.cultofmac.com/688515/2-apple-suppliers-allegedly...

(The original Washington Post report:

"Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/20/apple-u... )

jjtheblunt3• 5 years ago

That title is very purposefully misleading, as Apple isn't by any means pro forced labor, just thinks that bill is written wrong:

"Apple wants to water down key provisions of the bill, which would hold U.S. companies accountable for using Uighur forced labor, according to two congressional staffers"

yholio• 5 years ago

That seems to completely vindicate the notion that "Apple is lobbying against a bill aimed at stopping forced labor in China".

It doesn't imply the proposed law is well written, or even likely to achieve its stated goals. Just that Apple is lobbying against such a law.

randmeerkat2• 5 years ago

If Apple isn’t using forced labor then Apple shouldn’t be worried about the bill.

friedman23• 5 years ago

Apple is big enough to verify that slaves are not being used to manufacture their products.

mensetmanusman• 5 years ago

“ As expected, BOE absorbed Hynix's display technologies and capacity to rapidly catch up to the market incumbents. Backed by the Beijing city government's financial firepower, the company invested over a billion dollars to build its first cutting edge LCD factory. “

This is the power of state-backed capitalism. You can make heads-I-win tails-you-lose bets (because if they lose you can just devalue the currency of the citizens).

Fascinating considering tech economies as proxy wars though…

baybal2• 5 years ago

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/12/07/apple-ceo-tim-cook-secr...

nine_k2• 5 years ago

I wonder how much remains of the capitalism in this case.

I should remind us that the original "Doctrine of Fascism" (by Mussolini, not the German Nazi stuff) was very much about blending corporate and state power: it openly declares that "fascism is corporatism".

scoopertrooper3• 5 years ago

Corporatism, at the time, meant something closer to the Estates General or the Hong Kong electoral system for the Chief Executive.

Synaesthesia2• 5 years ago

Virtually every economically powerful country has arisen thanks to aid from the state. The UK in the 18th century, the US in the 19th (and since!) , the Asian Tigers in the 20th century.

est3• 5 years ago

This is the power of state-backed capitalism. You can make heads-I-win tails-you-lose bets

Or if it fails, you witness ghost cities and ghost industrial parks.

2bitencryption• 5 years ago

from the article: > BOE will initially split orders for the 6.1-inch iPhone 13 displays with Samsung Display

these types of "splits" have always confused me a bit. I guess Apple provides certain constraints - brightness, color accuracy, etc - and both manufacturers must meet those requirements.

But OLED displays are such complex things! Surely there must be some noticeable/functional difference between a "Samsung-display iPhone" and a "BOE-display iPhone" ? Slightly different viewing angle? Blues are a bit less saturated? Burn-in happens a few dozen hours sooner? 5% difference in power efficiency?

b112• 5 years ago

Different models can use different displays.

wishawa• 5 years ago

IIRC back in iPhone 6 days the CPU production was split between TSMC and Samsung. The TSMC ones were measurably better (performance, thermals, battery life), but the difference wasn’t very big, so most people didn’t care.

Wowfunhappy2• 5 years ago

Edit: Nope, my memory was completely wrong, I was thinking of modems.

stefan_• 5 years ago

They do this a lot. Modems used to be split between Infineon (then bought by Intel, then bought by Apple) and Qualcomm, with the Qualcomm ones rumored to have better throughput and signal strength.

cptskippy4• 5 years ago

Yeah, iircc Apple did this as a negotiating tactic with Qualcomm. Intel had acquired and did nothing with their modem business so they eventually sold it to Apple.

Apple is still using Qualcomm as their supplier but it wouldn't surprise me if they pull an M1 with their modem. For now they're at least using it as a bargaining chip with Qualcomm.

kalleboo• 5 years ago

With the first retina MacBook Pro, they split the displays between Samsung and LG, and the LG displays had some pretty nasty image retention issues, I had my display swapped due to them.

MBCook2• 5 years ago

Oh yeah, that’s right. Of course that was an actual defect. Obviously that wasn’t supposed to happen.

AzN1337c0d3r• 5 years ago

Yup I was able to reproduce it by displaying a high contrast checkerboard pattern for 2 minutes.

After I returned the 2nd laptop, I started opening the laptop in store to check for the issue and went through 4 more additional laptops before I got the Samsung display.

A couple of months later, in their repair catalog, Apple apparently created a new part number consisting only of Samsung displays and started replacing with a Samsung screen for all repairs.

coldtea• 5 years ago

But OLED displays are such complex things! Surely there must be some noticeable/functional difference between a "Samsung-display iPhone" and a "BOE-display iPhone" ?

So? People get the base compatibility. What are they gonna do, compare micro-differences with another guy's device and complain?

MBCook2• 5 years ago

Some Apple fans will. Yes.

And I say that as an Apple fan.

For example two or three years ago the top-of-the-line iPhone had either an Intel or a Qualcomm modem in it. People figured out the Qualcomm modem was faster. And some of them complained or tried to figure out a way to get a Qualcomm model.

Of course no normal user would care. Apple‘s standards are so high that even if you got the “bad“ OLED screen it would still be very very good.

bunnie• 5 years ago

One of the many social messages sent by Apple products is "I deserve/have the best".

Once you are selling to customers like that, you have left the realm of the so-called economically rational customer which has a value curve that seeks a good product at a fair price. Instead they feel entitled to the best product because they can/have paid the top price for it.

Thus there is going to be a subset that will deeply care that they have "the bestest of the best", and so micro differences become an obsession.

Latty• 5 years ago

Almost all computer hardware is sold within a range of specs, not absolute specs. The silicon lottery is a thing, and what you get could be exactly on the spec or above it to some level.

As long as all the providers meet a given spec, if some of them are better that isn't inherently a problem. This applies to having different suppliers as well as variance within a manufacturing process.

Now, of course if all reviewers happen to get the better version this could be an issue, as seen with lots of SSDs recently with components getting swapped out after-the-fact.

Of note, Samsung use different chips in different markets. The US version of the Galaxy S20 uses a Snapdragon chip which is generally considered better than the EU version's Exynos chip, particularly when it comes to power efficiency. That caused some anger.

I would say that as long as a manufacturer handles it correctly with reviewers so consumers see the minimum they could get, not a best-case, it's fine. Otherwise, it should probably be sold under a different name.

bserge• 5 years ago

Still can't unlock the bootloader on Snapdragon/NA models though lol

a9h74j• 5 years ago

You might well imagine what advantages go to Apple (or any major OEM) from having multiple suppliers tooling up to supply a complex component within a spec. Multiple sourcing. Big-failure avoidance. Competitive development with different cultures, insights, and constraints. Testing which suppliers are better able to meet "stretch" (negotiable) requirements. Ongoing leverage in negotiation.

But presumably such an OEM must [often?] reward multiple suppliers with splits on orders.

dylan604• 5 years ago

Also easier stated, don't put all your eggs in one basket. While less nuanced, it just goes to show how old the concept is

freetinker• 5 years ago

Apple provides spec, and controls spec compliance.

toast0• 5 years ago

You see some of this in other products. I think some of the varieties of Nintendo 3DS had different screen types, with no difference in model number; have to open the box to see what's in it. It's generally called the panel lotery; some purchasers will return a device if it doesn't have the panel they want and there's no way to specify.

Apple could split by model or destination market if there's a significant difference in quality or price, or just shuffle and you get what you get (or you return it until they change the return policy)

ansgri• 5 years ago

In my experience with measuring display characteristics (research lab working between computer and human vision), this is typical. One device we've worked with a couple of years ago, also with OLED, used different panels depending on the regional version, European or Asian. The spectra were measurably different, but visually there was only a very slight variation in color temperature.

Most of these differences can be adjusted for in software, which would be trivial considering Apple's competency in color science.

georgeburdell2• 5 years ago

Even after becoming the world's largest panel maker, the company continues to lean heavily on government subsidies. In 2019, BOE received $400 million in subsidies from various Chinese local and provincial governments. Per Chinese sources, from 2010 to 2019, they took in over $1.7 billion of subsidies - constituting over 50% of their net profit during this time.

This is why legislation such as the CHIPS Act should not be seen as corporate welfare but rather as leveling the playing field.

markdown2• 5 years ago

This is why legislation such as the CHIPS Act should not be seen as corporate welfare but rather as leveling the playing field.

What are your thoughts on affirmative action?

olliej• 5 years ago

To equate compensating for centuries of racist, sexist, etc policies that artificially and deliberately suppressed the success of different races, genders, and other groups to corporate subsidies is unequivocally bullshit.

A better comparison if you really insist on comparing treatment of companies to actual people would be to take two identical companies working in the same market. Force one of them to close. After the second has been established for a few hundred years, allow the one you shut down to reopen, but tell them that they can't charge more than 50% of the price of the established firm, and also say that suppliers don't have to provide goods to that firm, and if they do then those suppliers don't have to provide goods at the same level of quality. Those suppliers also charge more, for the lower quality goods. To be safe, you also don't allow the company to build anywhere near existing commercial or industrial zones, so they also have to pay more for shipping and transit, despite being less conveniently placed.

After a while you say "ok, you can sell to everyone and we aren't going to limit what you can charge, etc". Then you turn around and say "see everything is equal now".

Of course by this point entire industries are built around the version of the product sold by the established firm, the established firm has more resources, the subsidiaries of the established firm have more resources, as do their subsidiaries, because all those subsidiaries have been getting the same preferential treatment. Meanwhile the historically penalized firm has been given a bad rap because the quality of a lower quality of goods, because they got worse materials to start with, they couldn't afford the same quality of workers (in fact they were functionally prohibited from employing the best).

Now people say "of course we pay less for goods from that company, they're lower quality".

It may be a true statement, but the reason isn't because the company is fundamentally flawed, just that the established company has had unending advantages, and those advantages continue to apply even after the original penalties were removed.

Of course this is a gross simplification of what actually happened to the victims of the various repressive laws and policies of various countries, because again, companies are not people.

ConcernedSA• 5 years ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

I am a coloured South African(an ethnic group that was previously disadvantaged due to apartheid era racial policies) we in South Africa have Affirmative action policies called Black Economic Empower(BEE) (Its open to all previously advantaged racial groups ie Black, Coloured, Indian they just call it BEE) that has led to mass corruption and cronyism.

Start with crony capitalism, which in South Africa goes by the euphemism “black economic empowerment”. The idea behind it seemed laudable enough—to right a historical wrong. Under apartheid, the country produced white titans of industry such as the Oppenheimer family (owners of DeBeers), while making it hard for black South Africans to own businesses. The ANC(Ruling political party) felt it only fair that there should be black billionaires, too. To give them a leg-up it insisted that mining companies should hand at least 26% of their shares to the “historically disadvantaged”. Mining companies (as well as banks and insurers) did so willingly, diluting existing shareholdings when they transferred stakes to the likes of Cyril Ramaphosa, now the president, along with Patrice Motsepe, his brother-in-law, and Bridgette Radebe, his sister-in-law.[1]

I and alot of South Africans could stomach a one-off payment or one-off percentage equity stake in firms(in South Africa the government instituted a policy that South African Corporate firms would sell shares preferential)to disadvantaged groups but after these shares were sold, the government wanted to continuously repeat it.

If these handouts had been a one-off tax, their harm would by now have been forgotten. But once the new black shareholders had sold their holdings, the government drafted regulations to repeat the process. And so capital investment in mines fell by 45% between 2010 and 2018, with output falling by 10% and employment by 50,000—a tenth of direct employment in the industry in 2010.[1]

When the government gives support not based on merit and competence but gender, race, religion or ethnicity you undermine industrial policy(Instead of support based on a person's potential ability or ability to do things)With affirmative action you end up institutionalising incompetence.

Black Economic Empowerment, a policy that incentivises firms to give equity to black investors or business to black-owned suppliers, has created a new generation of Randlords with more political acumen than entrepreneurial talent. “Cadre deployment”, whereby ANC party(Ruling political party) members get jobs on the basis of factional fealty rather than merit, has degraded the state. These appointees steer contracts towards chosen “tenderpreneurs”, who in turn donate to the party. By 2007 Kgalema Motlanthe, a party grandee, said: “This rot is across the board...Almost every project is conceived because it offers opportunities for certain people to make money.”[2]

Many South African feel that our counrty has become "a cappuccino society, A vast, huge, black majority at the bottom with a layer of white cream and a few chocolate sprinklings at the top of it" referring to the small black elite who have gained great riches from the post-apartheid years - from a failed attempt to rebalance the wealth among the many.

Yes, I acknowledge the present-day inequities that racist, sexist, etc policies can cause, but if a Government was serious about addressing historical inequalities then you need to invest in education and skills development. Affirmative action never works in the long term, instead of making people competent and self-reliant,it makes them dependent on handouts.

Industrial policy can sometimes work in South Korea, Taiwan, Certain Industries in China, or it can fail spectacularly and end up being a waste of time and resources Malaysia and South Africa(instead of giving equity stakes and handouts you could have used those same resources to invest in everyone, not just a particular race, ethnicity, gender or religion.)

Affirmative action policies can actually be self-defeating and harm the industrial policies you have.

Contrast Taiwan and Malaysia's Industrial Policies and Outcomes

Taiwan's has currently a healthy semiconductor industry with many successful and impressive firms ie TSMC, etc.

And Malaysia with its affirmative action laws favouring certain ethnicities that ultimately undermined their industrial policies. The corruption and shenanigans that result from affirmative action policies happened in South Africa also happened in Malaysia and undermined their long term industrial goals.

Appropriating a quote from Deng Xiaoping "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." This is taken to mean that as long as the economy works, it is a good economy.

Affirmative action is equality of outcome. Do people think they have godly powers that can guarantee certain outcomes or results? There is an inherent risk of failure in all ventures and endeavours.

A correct criticism of capitalism is when it does not provide equal opportunity and so we should always strive to provide equal opportunity, but people confuse that with the equal outcome when, equal outcome can only be enforced through violence because different people, free people make different choices and when they make different choices they have different outcomes if you don't let them suffer the consequences of bad choices or reap the rewards from good choices then you have to use force or violence to get a prefered outcome

If people are really serious about freedom and equality then you should want not just the freedom to succeed, but also the freedom to fail.

[1]https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/07/24/end-of-the-line...

[2]https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2021/07/24/...

freeflight• 5 years ago

As if US companies didn't already have those kinds of subsidies [0]. Whole US states will wave away taxes and offer all kinds of perks just to attract the jobs and business of these corporations.

[0] https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/intel

georgeburdell2• 5 years ago

According to that website, Intel has received $6B in government subsidies from 1993/2000, variously, to present. Here are Intel's profits for the past 5 full years:

2020: $20.9B [0]

2019: $21B [0]

2018: $21.1B [1]

2017: $9.6B [1]

2016: $10.3B [2]

$6B is a low single digit percentage of their profit going back 28 years. BOE has been subsidized on a whole other level and they're still not consistently profitable.

[0] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1439/...

[1] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1092/...

[2] https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1102/...

tw04• 5 years ago

Remind me how many of the states that are giving tax breaks are majority stakeholders in the companies they're giving tax breaks to. Also, which company can you point to that had 50% of their revenue in subsidies...

cma• 5 years ago

Why do you think ASML can't sell EUV machines to China? It's because before ASML signed on they were started through a US Govt DoE, US Govt DARPA, and US Megacompany consortium: https://www.photonicsonline.com/doc/asml-joins-euv-llc-team-...

China probably sees things as leveling the playing field too. To find high tech industry that emerges through pure Ayn Rand search through Mogadishu, various favelas, etc., not developed or rapidly developing places.

rbanffy7• 5 years ago

The effect of that is that China will eventually acquire their own ASML.

tooltalk12• 5 years ago

I'm no fan of gov't handouts, but I guess you sometimes need to fight evil with evil. America's semiconductor manufacturing is down to only 13% of global chip production share and declining -- the country's manufacturing industry would get wiped out without the same level of subsidies or protection provided by the Chinese or Taiwanese gov't.

thevardanian• 5 years ago

This is literally not new and has been the case even in the west for centuries. In fact in many ways it contributed to its domination. It's just that the post WW2 era was entirely an anomaly, and one that we got too comfortable with.

ren_engineer• 5 years ago

evil

it used to be common sense not to hand over your nation's strategic assets to potential foreign adversaries, common Americans all intuitively knew shipping manufacturing to China was bad. Wall Street greed and bribed politicians allowed this to happen. Evil is selling out your nation for profit

rektide2• 5 years ago

Semiconductor making is of such general utility that supporting a robust, accessible, at home supplier market seems incredible incredibly beneficial.

If we're just making handouts to support big companys competing to make their own chips, then yeah, it's boring & "evil". But there's a lot to be gained if America could reopen not just companies but foundries, places that take orders. If a nation can get it's citizens access to domestic chipmaking capabilities at competitive prices, that nation can start spawning all kinds of firms specialized in all manners of chips, can create a massive amount of intellectual & market leadership for itself.

I propose that creating silicon foundries again, as a public good, would be enormously enormously beneficial for the intellectual & economic prosperity of a nation.

Synaesthesia2• 5 years ago

Protectionism and government intervention like bailing out corporations is typical of governments, and is a reason why the US is successful. Just to give one example, if Reagan hadn't protected the chip industry in the 80's it could have been dominated by Japan.

beebeepka• 5 years ago

America's semi industry was spawned and supported with government money since the beginning. China is no different.

Capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor is it magical in the way you imply. You youngsters

camillomiller• 5 years ago

LOL but bailing out the financial sector in 2008 without anyone paying for what they did was fine? At least check what’s going on with Evergrande.

You all have it so ingrained that market forces are the only way things should work that you even end up using absolute categories such as good and evil.

jjeaff• 5 years ago

My understanding is that the US has the most advanced chip making capabilities in the world and is unmatched by anyone. Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm.

Is that not true? Does the US constitute only 13% of world chip making because most chips sold are cheap, low powered chips? And if that is the case, does it really matter that we aren't making the cheap stuff?

phkahler• 5 years ago

> but I guess you sometimes need to fight evil with evil.

Instead of propping up our own companies, a better response might be to ban imports of these government subsidized products. Apple wouldn't be harmed in the slightest, this move is just a cost savings for them.

api• 5 years ago

Corporations can't compete with governments, especially large ones with sovereign currencies who can subsidize without bound.

If China is going to do this we either have to do the same or levy corresponding import duties on the product. If we do nothing at all we lose all our industries to China.

Edit: yes the US does this too in other industries like aerospace. That just illustrates the point.

eunos4• 5 years ago

What does it mean by subsidy in this context? Tax breaks?

davidjytang3• 5 years ago

I worked in another field against Chinese state-owned competitions.

Pretty much for each unit they sell, they not only receive payment from customer, they also receive government payment for the same amount. As a result, they were able to keep the price unreasonably low.

vmception• 5 years ago

This is why you finesse as many governments as possible while the people tear themselves up over their government’s budget overruns

jwmhjwmh• 5 years ago

Another win for state economic planning.

tooltalk12• 5 years ago

or more appropriately, it's a win for corporatism led by a multinational company called Apple.

JumpCrisscross• 5 years ago

Agreed. Our society’s seeming cultural inability to mobilise against a proven and motivated ideological adversary may be its death knell. “But meh” might be the answer to how empires dissolve.

scoopertrooper3• 5 years ago

I don't know. If the Chinese government wants to subsidise my OLED screen, I say let them.

azinman2• 5 years ago

And in doing so, they put everyone else out of business and then own the market.

dotancohen• 5 years ago

That's extraordinarily short-sighted. When your nation no longer has manufacturing capability and you are beholden to Chinese OLED screens you might think differently. Not only will the price be fit for a monopoly, but also they could freely restrict tech from your other industries, further crippling your nation. Not to mention restricting sales to military and other strategic ventures.

Several decades ago it was food security - the idea that a nation must produce enough of its own food to feed its populace - that was the concern of import policy. Today the field is much, much broader.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security

coolgoose• 5 years ago

I am not against leveling the playing field, but those subsidies are peanuts in the semi-conductor world.

gurumeditations• 5 years ago

BOE also makes advanced micro OLED displays which can be used in AR.

aemreunal• 5 years ago

I'm curios in what state the US' manufacturing (chips, displays or otherwise) capabilities would be had Apple invested that USD $250-odd billion (as alleged on that "secret deal" article) in the US rather than in China. I'm skeptical it would've ever reached the low cost (but high-quality) of labor they get in China but maybe they would offset that with something else?

tooltalk12• 5 years ago

Neither chip or display manufacturing is driven by labor cost. China has, or had, no advantage here whatsoever -- other than the gov't subsidies and Apple, a large American investor and guaranteed buyer/customer.

The display industry was previously dominated by Japan; then is by South Korea. Both countries are close US allies -- or America's "lapdogs" if you prefer. The mobile OLED as we know today is mostly Samsung's achievement -- they were the first to successfully develop, commercialize and mass-produce with large market share, both as producer (95+%) and consumer (95+%) until a few years ago.

xadhominemx• 5 years ago

Chip manufacturing is definitely driven by labor costs. Labor is still a major component of opex and capitalized labor construction costs are a large portion of capex.

watersb2• 5 years ago

A lot of comments here consider what manufacturing in the United States might look like at this scale.

I have heard that we would need to build an entire Pear River Delta supercluster of manufacturing and supplier capacity, to "level the playing field".

Not just one company. All the companies.

Is the US willing to build anything at that scale?

lotsofpulp• 5 years ago

No, the costs to comply with US environmental regulations as well as costs of inevitable litigation from the pollution would be astronomical.

davidjytang3• 5 years ago

As long as there is profit, some people would risk even death earning it.

watersb2• 5 years ago

"Some of you may die, but that is a risk I am willing to take."

eunos4• 5 years ago

BOE has no fab in the pearl River delta though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOE_Technology

viktorcode2• 5 years ago

You'll need workers to fill those factories. And on top of them you'll need seasonal workers too, because there's no reason to employ huge number of people outside of "new iPhone season".

ngcc_hk• 5 years ago

Is it related to the apple paying china part? Somehow the money has to go somewhere …

ksec• 5 years ago

This isn't the first time this has been rumoured, it goes back as far as 2018 for BOE joining the Apple OLED Supply Chain. It makes zero sense at the time because BOE does not produce OLED of Samsung's Quality. Fast forward to today iPhone ( Non-Pro ) version are using OLED as well. So it makes sense to source more "affordable" components. My initial reaction in 2019 was expecting BOE's panel iPhone to be only sold in China, since iPhone ( non-Pro ) in China has the lowest prices ex VAT and Import tax. But now I believe Apple's goal will be to replace the whole iPhone ( non-Pro ) lineup with BOE and only use Samsung for Pro models. Sigh.

This has been long time in the making. The next step is probably using NAND from YMTC and DRAM from CXMT. Although both seems to be quite far off.

eunos4• 5 years ago

Seems YMTC NAND already achieved frontier similar to Hynix and Samsung. Volume might be the limitations for now.

rbanffy7• 5 years ago

As the other day I was looking for a flexible OLED panel to replace a broken CRT (because CRTs are curved) in a Minitel terminal, I welcome any competition that could drive prices down.

A Trinitron like curvature would be nicer than an obviously flat LCD panel.

Apple’s Newest OLED Supplier

Related Stories