| |
|
 |
Although domestic manufacturers and media take an pessimistic attitudes toward PDP TV, which results in the domestic PDP TV's sales volume a decline, yet, in other markets except China, the market share of PDP TV accounts for more than 80% of flat panel TV (screen over 40 inches) market. So, the prospect of PDP TV has never been doubted abroad.
Domestic manufacturers and media believe that compared to LCD TV, PDP TV is of high power consumption, low resolution and short lifespan. What's more, so many large-size LCD TV production lines have been put into operation that the voice of LCD TV replacing PDP TV is getting stronger and stronger in mainland China.
But actually, it is LCD TV that has a higher power consumption instead compared to PDP TV of the same size, for PDP TV is of self-luminousness, its power consumption is always various and is in direct ratio to brightness of pictures, while LCD TV depends on light bar, its power consumption is invariable, and its average power consumption is higher than that of PDP TV; as for the resolution, it is the same for tier-one PDP TV and LCDTV. Most of LCD TV's resolution is 1366×768, higher than the 1024×768 of common PDP TV, but their difference is not that obvious based on the current signal source; as far as the lifespan is concerned, PDP TV's lifespan can last at least 30,000 hours, only max 10,000 hours lower than LCD TV, so it can be used at least 20 years if it works at 4 hours per day. Moreover, both the contrast and brightness of LCD TV are not as good as that of PDP TV and, low contrast will result in the grey-scale analyzing performance not so ideal which can cause the effect of pictures are not that satisfactory. The fatal shortcomings of LCD TV also lie in the response time and color. However, for PDP TV, its response time is 10 times better than that of LCD TV, and furthermore, its color saturation can reach 90% plus compared to 72% of LCD TV.
PDP TV unpopular among domestic manufacturers should be ascribed to the upstream panel fields. Presently, the best sellers for PDP TV panel are LG and Samsung, both of which are simultaneously the main PDP TV manufacturers. Naturally, domestic manufactures are reluctant to buy from rivals the panel that is one of the most important parts as well as a part accounting for most of the cost. Nevertheless, for LCD TV, this will not happen because Taiwan-based AUO, CHUANGHWA, CMO and QDI all can offer panels of LCD TV with screen below 37 inches, and most importantly, these manufacturers don’t produce LCD TV, so that is why LCD TV is quite popular, and nearly all the domestic manufacturers appreciate the production of LCD TV and depreciate the PDP TV.
Forecast of Global PDP TV Demand, 2006-2010
Global PDP TV Shipment, 2000-2006
Market Shares of Main PDP TV Panel Manufacturers, 2005-2006
The most powerful counterattack against LCD TV from PDP TV is initiated by Samsung and Panasonic.
Panasonic declared on Jan 10, 2007 that they would invest 280 billion Yen (or 2.3 billion US dollars) to establish the global largest PDP TV panel factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo of Japan. The factory is planned to start up in Nov 2007 and put into production by May 2009. Its monthly production capacity is expected to equal 1 million pieces of 42-inch panel and total production capacity of 21.5 million pieces of 42-inch panel per year.
At present, Panasonic have 4 factories (including Amagasaki No.1 factory, Ibaraki No. 1 factory, Ibaraki No.2 factory and Shanghai factory), which have put into production for PDP TV panel, and the annual production capacity reaches 5.5 million pieces; The fully-loaded production capacity of Ibaraki No. 2 factory invested 180 billion Yen is 6 million pieces, and after this factory put into production in the year of 2006, the annual production capacity of PDP TV panel has already reached 115 million pieces (42-inch panel). So it shows that the market demands are still strong, otherwise the conservative Japanese impossibly make such a big production capacity expansion.
In addition, the new production lines of Samsung SDI will be put into operation by Jun 2007.
On the contrary, LCD panel production camp encountered a huge loss as well as the trouble of anti-monopoly investigation.
The first is LPL. It continued a net loss of 321 billion South Korean Won in 2006Q3 after a loss of 322 billion South Korean Won (339 million US dollars) in Q2. The operational loss rose to 382 billion South Korean Won or 404 million US dollars, 372 million South Korean Won higher than that of Q2.
Following is QDI. Its loss reached 12.5 billion Tai Wan dollars or about RMB 3 billion in the first three quarters of 2006; then is CHUANGHWA whose loss amounted to 11.9 billon Taiwan dollars or RMB 2.87 billion in the first three quarters of 2006; the fourth comes to BOE whose loss was RMB 1.2 billion in 2006H1; and lastly is HannStar Display whose loss was 5.865 billion Taiwan dollars or around RMB 1.4 billion.
Of course, there are some enterprises that have made profit but not in an optimistic way. For instance, Samsung's 2006Q3 profit decreased by 46% in LCD business over the same period of 2005 and AUO’s gross margin also dropped by 87% compared to the same period of previous year.
Unfortunately, meanwhile, the LCD panel industry is attacked by the anti-monopoly investigation matter right when it falls into a hardship.
It was confirmed that on Dec 10, 2006, global top 10 TFT panel manufacturers including Sharp, Samsung SDI, LPL, AUO and CMO were successively confronted with investigations from Fair Trade Commission of Japan & South Korea and U.S. Department of Justice. US-based subsidiary of AUO and Japan-based subsidiary of QDI were investigated. As Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan doesn't receive any impeachments or complains up to now, they don't open out an investigation to Taiwan panel factories. The investigation caused the TFT panel share a dive, LPL's was down by 8%, the lowest level in five years, and the share price of Samsung, AUO and QDI all declined.
According to the report of Korean media, KFTV has began an investigation to LPL and Samsung because they doubt that these two companies have participated in the price monopoly and hope to know whether they have involved in monopolizing LCD panel price and controlling the supply in order to make illegal profits. LPL's press release also verified that KFTC has investigated its Seoul office and meanwhile, JFTC has informed LPL's Tokyo office for a cooperative investigation. US Department of Justice has issued a summons to San Jose, California as well.
Looking back to the panel industry during 2003-2004, these two years are indeed the operational peak of panel industry. Taking AUO as the example, its operating revenue and net profit reached NTD 97.61 billion and NTD 27.96 billion respectively in 2003 and, both figures rose to NTD 164.6 billion and NTD 27.96 billion separately in 2004. As far as CMO is concerned, the operating revenue and net profit reached NTD 62.03 billion and NTD 7.15 billion respectively in 2003 and, both figures rose to NTD 102.5 billion and NTD 17.19 billion separately in 2004.
As for the price during 2003-2004, the average price of 17-inch LCD monitor panel was 295 US dollars in 2004Q1 and climbed to 305 US dollars in April and May and then began to decline; while the price of 32-inch LCD TV panel was as high as 1,100 US dollars, however, the quotation of above-mentioned two kinds of panels decreased to 125 US dollars and 340 US dollars respectively in early Dec 2006.
The price monopoly of panel industry is just like what happened in DRAM industry. The US Department of Justice began to investigate large DRAM manufacturers on price monopoly case, and moreover, Samsung, Hynix, Infineon and Elpida all admitted the fact and accepted the fines of around 730 million US dollars.
According to EU, the highest fine may reach 10% of annual operating revenue if the judge comes into existence while US DOJ may judge the fine based on 2 times of profits of investigated manufacturers, or 2 times of losses of injured manufacturers. So for Samsung SDI and LPL alone, they may be fined as high as 1.1 billion US dollars, among which, Samsung is expected to account for 700 million US dollars while LPL 400 million US dollars. The total fine may be 129 million US dollars more than that of DRAM monopoly case, and 752 million US dollars more than that of Vitamin manufacturers fined by EU in 2001.
However, these LCD panel manufacturers are now facing cash flow shortage for they have invested large amount of capitals into new production lines in order to take the lead in the competitions, especially Samsung and LPL. Now plus the huge fines, it no doubt makes their burden much heavier.
Undoubtedly, Samsung will suffer a largest loss, followed by Sharp, CMO and AUO.
Normally, the anti-monopoly lawsuit is prolonged, and at least it will not end within 1 year. But it can cause a great influence on LCD panel industry. Firstly, LCD panel manufacturers have to remain some cash to deal with the coming huge fine; Secondly, the financing of LCD panel manufacturers will become more difficult for investors believe the shares with frequently wavy are not promising. The amplitudes of LCD panel manufacturers themselves are rather big, plus another uncertain factor of lawsuit, the investors will certainly sell the shares of LCD panel manufacturers. Thirdly, LCD panel manufacturers are facing cash flow shortage, so the further development of new production lines will be delayed and even paused.
|
|
|
|
|
If this report could not still meet your requirement, or
you have any comments or suggestions on it, please leave a
message to us.
|
2005-2007 www.researchinchina.com All Rights Reserved
| |
|
|
| |
|
Although domestic manufacturers and media take an pessimistic attitudes toward PDP TV, which results in the domestic PDP TV's sales volume a decline, yet, in other markets except China, the market share of PDP TV accounts for more than 80% of flat panel TV (screen over 40 inches) market. So, the prospect of PDP TV has never been doubted abroad.
Domestic manufacturers and media believe that compared to LCD TV, PDP TV is of high power consumption, low resolution and short lifespan. What's more, so many large-size LCD TV production lines have been put into operation that the voice of LCD TV replacing PDP TV is getting stronger and stronger in mainland China.
But actually, it is LCD TV that has a higher power consumption instead compared to PDP TV of the same size, for PDP TV is of self-luminousness, its power consumption is always various and is in direct ratio to brightness of pictures, while LCD TV depends on light bar, its power consumption is invariable, and its average power consumption is higher than that of PDP TV; as for the resolution, it is the same for tier-one PDP TV and LCDTV. Most of LCD TV's resolution is 1366×768, higher than the 1024×768 of common PDP TV, but their difference is not that obvious based on the current signal source; as far as the lifespan is concerned, PDP TV's lifespan can last at least 30,000 hours, only max 10,000 hours lower than LCD TV, so it can be used at least 20 years if it works at 4 hours per day. Moreover, both the contrast and brightness of LCD TV are not as good as that of PDP TV and, low contrast will result in the grey-scale analyzing performance not so ideal which can cause the effect of pictures are not that satisfactory. The fatal shortcomings of LCD TV also lie in the response time and color. However, for PDP TV, its response time is 10 times better than that of LCD TV, and furthermore, its color saturation can reach 90% plus compared to 72% of LCD TV.
PDP TV unpopular among domestic manufacturers should be ascribed to the upstream panel fields. Presently, the best sellers for PDP TV panel are LG and Samsung, both of which are simultaneously the main PDP TV manufacturers. Naturally, domestic manufactures are reluctant to buy from rivals the panel that is one of the most important parts as well as a part accounting for most of the cost. Nevertheless, for LCD TV, this will not happen because Taiwan-based AUO, CHUANGHWA, CMO and QDI all can offer panels of LCD TV with screen below 37 inches, and most importantly, these manufacturers don’t produce LCD TV, so that is why LCD TV is quite popular, and nearly all the domestic manufacturers appreciate the production of LCD TV and depreciate the PDP TV.
Forecast of Global PDP TV Demand, 2006-2010
Global PDP TV Shipment, 2000-2006
Market Shares of Main PDP TV Panel Manufacturers, 2005-2006
The most powerful counterattack against LCD TV from PDP TV is initiated by Samsung and Panasonic.
Panasonic declared on Jan 10, 2007 that they would invest 280 billion Yen (or 2.3 billion US dollars) to establish the global largest PDP TV panel factory in Amagasaki, Hyogo of Japan. The factory is planned to start up in Nov 2007 and put into production by May 2009. Its monthly production capacity is expected to equal 1 million pieces of 42-inch panel and total production capacity of 21.5 million pieces of 42-inch panel per year.
At present, Panasonic have 4 factories (including Amagasaki No.1 factory, Ibaraki No. 1 factory, Ibaraki No.2 factory and Shanghai factory), which have put into production for PDP TV panel, and the annual production capacity reaches 5.5 million pieces; The fully-loaded production capacity of Ibaraki No. 2 factory invested 180 billion Yen is 6 million pieces, and after this factory put into production in the year of 2006, the annual production capacity of PDP TV panel has already reached 115 million pieces (42-inch panel). So it shows that the market demands are still strong, otherwise the conservative Japanese impossibly make such a big production capacity expansion.
In addition, the new production lines of Samsung SDI will be put into operation by Jun 2007.
On the contrary, LCD panel production camp encountered a huge loss as well as the trouble of anti-monopoly investigation.
The first is LPL. It continued a net loss of 321 billion South Korean Won in 2006Q3 after a loss of 322 billion South Korean Won (339 million US dollars) in Q2. The operational loss rose to 382 billion South Korean Won or 404 million US dollars, 372 million South Korean Won higher than that of Q2.
Following is QDI. Its loss reached 12.5 billion Tai Wan dollars or about RMB 3 billion in the first three quarters of 2006; then is CHUANGHWA whose loss amounted to 11.9 billon Taiwan dollars or RMB 2.87 billion in the first three quarters of 2006; the fourth comes to BOE whose loss was RMB 1.2 billion in 2006H1; and lastly is HannStar Display whose loss was 5.865 billion Taiwan dollars or around RMB 1.4 billion.
Of course, there are some enterprises that have made profit but not in an optimistic way. For instance, Samsung's 2006Q3 profit decreased by 46% in LCD business over the same period of 2005 and AUO’s gross margin also dropped by 87% compared to the same period of previous year.
Unfortunately, meanwhile, the LCD panel industry is attacked by the anti-monopoly investigation matter right when it falls into a hardship.
It was confirmed that on Dec 10, 2006, global top 10 TFT panel manufacturers including Sharp, Samsung SDI, LPL, AUO and CMO were successively confronted with investigations from Fair Trade Commission of Japan & South Korea and U.S. Department of Justice. US-based subsidiary of AUO and Japan-based subsidiary of QDI were investigated. As Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan doesn't receive any impeachments or complains up to now, they don't open out an investigation to Taiwan panel factories. The investigation caused the TFT panel share a dive, LPL's was down by 8%, the lowest level in five years, and the share price of Samsung, AUO and QDI all declined.
According to the report of Korean media, KFTV has began an investigation to LPL and Samsung because they doubt that these two companies have participated in the price monopoly and hope to know whether they have involved in monopolizing LCD panel price and controlling the supply in order to make illegal profits. LPL's press release also verified that KFTC has investigated its Seoul office and meanwhile, JFTC has informed LPL's Tokyo office for a cooperative investigation. US Department of Justice has issued a summons to San Jose, California as well.
Looking back to the panel industry during 2003-2004, these two years are indeed the operational peak of panel industry. Taking AUO as the example, its operating revenue and net profit reached NTD 97.61 billion and NTD 27.96 billion respectively in 2003 and, both figures rose to NTD 164.6 billion and NTD 27.96 billion separately in 2004. As far as CMO is concerned, the operating revenue and net profit reached NTD 62.03 billion and NTD 7.15 billion respectively in 2003 and, both figures rose to NTD 102.5 billion and NTD 17.19 billion separately in 2004.
As for the price during 2003-2004, the average price of 17-inch LCD monitor panel was 295 US dollars in 2004Q1 and climbed to 305 US dollars in April and May and then began to decline; while the price of 32-inch LCD TV panel was as high as 1,100 US dollars, however, the quotation of above-mentioned two kinds of panels decreased to 125 US dollars and 340 US dollars respectively in early Dec 2006.
The price monopoly of panel industry is just like what happened in DRAM industry. The US Department of Justice began to investigate large DRAM manufacturers on price monopoly case, and moreover, Samsung, Hynix, Infineon and Elpida all admitted the fact and accepted the fines of around 730 million US dollars.
According to EU, the highest fine may reach 10% of annual operating revenue if the judge comes into existence while US DOJ may judge the fine based on 2 times of profits of investigated manufacturers, or 2 times of losses of injured manufacturers. So for Samsung SDI and LPL alone, they may be fined as high as 1.1 billion US dollars, among which, Samsung is expected to account for 700 million US dollars while LPL 400 million US dollars. The total fine may be 129 million US dollars more than that of DRAM monopoly case, and 752 million US dollars more than that of Vitamin manufacturers fined by EU in 2001.
However, these LCD panel manufacturers are now facing cash flow shortage for they have invested large amount of capitals into new production lines in order to take the lead in the competitions, especially Samsung and LPL. Now plus the huge fines, it no doubt makes their burden much heavier.
Undoubtedly, Samsung will suffer a largest loss, followed by Sharp, CMO and AUO.
Normally, the anti-monopoly lawsuit is prolonged, and at least it will not end within 1 year. But it can cause a great influence on LCD panel industry. Firstly, LCD panel manufacturers have to remain some cash to deal with the coming huge fine; Secondly, the financing of LCD panel manufacturers will become more difficult for investors believe the shares with frequently wavy are not promising. The amplitudes of LCD panel manufacturers themselves are rather big, plus another uncertain factor of lawsuit, the investors will certainly sell the shares of LCD panel manufacturers. Thirdly, LCD panel manufacturers are facing cash flow shortage, so the further development of new production lines will be delayed and even paused.
|
|
|
|
|
2005-2006 www.researchinchina.com All Rights Reserved |
|
| |
|
 |
| |
|
1 Overview of industry chain of China PDP TV industry
1.1 Principle of PDP TV
1.2 Panel structure of PDP TV
1.3 Panel manufacturing process of PDP TV
1.4 Overview of supply chain of key parts of PDP TV2 Market status of PDP TV
2.1 Global market
2.2 Chinese market 3 Market status of key raw materials of PDP TV panel
3.1 Glass substrate
3.1.1 Brief introduction to Asahi Glass Co., Ltd
3.1.2 Brief introduction to Nippon Electric Glass
3.1.3 Bus and data electrode material
3.2 Insulating materials
3.3 Barrier rib material for PDP
3.4 Fluorescent powder
3.5 Optical filters
3.6 Drive IC of PDP TV panel 4 Market introduction of PDP TV panel
4.1 Market overview
4.2 Production capacity of key global PDP TV panel suppliers
4.3 Source and price of PDP TV panel in China
4.4 One of key PDP TV OEM manufactories: SAMPO 5 PDP TV panel manufacturers
5.1 Matsushita PDP Company Ltd (MPDP)
5.2 FHP
5.3 Pioneer Electronic Corp.
5.4 LG Electronics
5.5 Samsung SDI
5.6 Orion Electric
5.7 AU Optronics Corp
5.8 CPT
5.9 Facilities of key PDP manufacturers in China
5.9.1 Hitachi
5.9.2 Pioneer
5.9.3 Sony
5.9.4 Toshiba
|
|
|
|
|
2005-2006 www.researchinchina.com All Rights Reserved |
|
| |
|
 |
| |
|
Principle of PDP
Structure of PDP panel
Principle of PDP Circuit
Process flow of PDP panel
Supply chain of key parts of PDP TV
Supply trend of CCFL tube, glass substrate, color filter and polarizer
Global shipment of PDP TV, 2000-2006Q3
Forecast on sales volume and growth of PDP TV worldwide, 2005-2009
Proportion of global sales volume of PDP TV by region, 2006
Market shares of global shipment of PDP TV by brand, 2006Q3
Shares in European PDP TV market by manufacturer, 2006
Shares in North American PDP TV market by manufacturer, 2006
Shares in Japanese PDP TV market by manufacturer, 2006
Market scale and change of PDP TV in China, 2002-2006
Retail sales of key PDP brands in China by screen size/structure, Mar 2006
Retail sales in Chinese PDP TV market by price, 2006
Brand shares in Chinese PDP TV market by shipment, 2006
Brand shares in Chinese PDP TV market by retail value, 2006
Distribution of PDP TV consumption cluster in China, 2006
Cost structure of PDP TV
Cost structure of PDP panel
Sales volume and sales value of PDP glass substrate, 1999-2006
Operational index of Asahi Glass Co., Ltd, FY2004-FY2006
Product structure of Asahi Glass Co., Ltd, 2006
Market shares of key manufacturers in PDP panel's bus and data electrode material market
Market shares of key manufacturers in PDP panel's electrode material market
Market share of key manufacturers in PDP panel's barrier rid material market
Global shipment and growth rate of PDP panel, 2006
Market shares of key PDP module manufacturers, 2006Q3
Market shares of key PDP panel manufacturers, 2005-2006
Statistics of production capacity expansion of key PDP panel manufacturers, Jun 2004-2006
Price trend of global PDP module market, 2005-2006
Quarterly operating revenue of Compo, 2005Q1-2006Q3
Sales proportion of key products of Compo, 2006
Statistics and forecast of shipment and average price of LGE panel module, 2004-2006
Sales proportion of Samsung SDI by division, 2006
Shipment and sales revenue of PDP panel of Samsung SDI, 2006
Sales proportion of CPT by division, 2006
Comparison among three kinds of processes of electrode preparation
Ranking of PDP sales volume by market
Price contrast of PDP glass substrate by size, 2000-2006
Global market share and ranking of products of Asahi Glass Co., Ltd, 2006
Price contrast of PDP panel's bus and data electrode material, 2000-2006
Performance comparison of 42-inch products of key PDP panel manufacturers
Production capacity statistics of key global PDP panel suppliers, 2006
PDP manufacturers in mainland China
Statistics of product lines of Xingbao Sci-tech Garden
Statistics of production capacity expansion of Panasonic, 2001-2007
Performance of PDP panel of Panasonic
Statistics of production capacity expansion of FHP, Sep 2003-2006
Performance of PDP panel of FHP
Performance of PDP panel of Pioneer
Statistics of production capacity expansion of LG Electronics, 2001-2006
Performance of PDP panel of LG Electronics
Performance of PDP panel of Samsung SDI
Performance of PDP panel of Orion Electric
Performance of PDP panel of CFT
|
2005-2008 www.researchinchina.com All Rights Reserved
|
