Supply constraints will limit OLED to just 'iPhone 8,' benefitting Apple in long run - rep...

Posted:
in iPhone edited February 2017
A new analyst report sheds some doubt on the "super cycle" concept because of a probable limit in OLED screen supply, suggesting that the pent-up demand for a revolutionary iPhone incorporating the flexible screens will only be sated after a few years -- which will boost AAPL over the long term.




In an analyst's note penned by Robert Cihra from Guggenheim Securities, and seen by AppleInsider, needed quantities of OLED screens for a full shift to the technology in the "iPhone 7s" and "iPhone 8" won't be met by suppliers only now ramping up for production. As a result, Apple will have to source nearly all of its short-term supply of the screens from Samsung.

Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.

Other than Samsung, there are several vendors of OLED panels. However, at this time, none come close to approaching the volume of the Samsung fabrication plants. Samsung holds the vast majority of OLED technology patents, and in April 2016 held 97.7 percent of the share of the OLED smartphone screen market.

This market dominance is unlikely to be impacted by Apple manufacturing partners any time soon. Apple's long-time iPhone screen supplier Japan Display received a $636 million bailoutand dedicated part of into buying a controlling stake in OLED firm Joled -- but when the investment will be productive for Japan Display is not clear.

Apple is also said to be involved in a multiple-year OLED screen delivery contract with Samsung, with a very recent deal for 60 million screens worth $4.3 billion underway, on top of a 100 million screen deal signed in 2016..

Should the OLED shift happen over multiple release years, Cihra expects that there will be a lower than expected 3% gain in iPhone sales from fiscal years 2016 to 2017, growing to an 11 percent gain from 2017 to 2018.

Cihra also sees a net gain in iPhone average selling price, as a result of the slower shift to OLED screens. The effect of more users migrating from older phones with the shift to larger screens in the iPhone 6 family is expected again, with the shift to OLED.




The premium "iPhone 8" could cost more than $1,000. Design features of the "iPhone 8" include a glass back and curved edge-to-edge 5.2-inch OLED display, concealing a Touch ID sensor, 3d facial recognition scanning technology, and FaceTime camera beneath the screen.

Apple is also expected to launch immediate successors to the iPhone 7 at the same time, sized with the same 4.7- and 5.5-inch screens. Reportedly, the "iPhone 7s" family retains LCD display technology.

As a result of all the factors leading up to a longer replacement cycle, Guggenheim's AAPL price target through calendar year 2018 has been raised to $180.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    source: captain obvious?
  • Reply 2 of 27
    OLED could be growing on trees and it still would be exclusive to iPhone 8 and not part of the 7s.

    I don't think some people understand how business works.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 3 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    OLED could be growing on trees and it still would be exclusive to iPhone 8 and not part of the 7s.

    I don't think some people understand how business works.
    I believe that if OLEDs were plentiful, then Apple would consider putting them in both models, and not have another phone. If there was competition now in OLEDs, the price would also be lower, making that more viable.

    i also read another article that Samsung is hoarding OLEDs for their own phones, and for their sales to Apple. Everyone else just gets a trickle.
    pscooter63
  • Reply 4 of 27
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,132moderator
    sog35 said:
    This one takes the cake.

    Supply restraints on a phone that won't be released for another 7 months.

    But I do like the $180 target price.

    Anyway, I bought more Apple shares today. But I also sold covered calls on those shares as insurance. I don't trust Wall Street at all.
    I also bought more shares today, in the pre-market.  Not having sold any, I'm now at 7500 shares.


  • Reply 5 of 27
    sog35 said:
    This is why Apple didn't go thermo-nuclear on Samsung the last couple years.

    They still need OLED panels from them

    I think Jobs would have gone thermo-nuclear on Samsung and torched the bridge. Then he would be stuck without an OLED supplier. 

    I think this is why Cook is a great CEO. He is very strategic and does not let emotion take over. He sees the big picture, years ahead.
    Certainly you jest. First, Apple neither needs OLED and certainly not curved screens to retain their massive profits. Second Apple tried to go thermonuclear on Samsung and other Android OEMs and all their tactics ultimately failed just as did their UX/UI lawsuit against Microsoft failed in the early 90s Only HTC gave into Apple's licensing demands and lawsuit threats, and even Apple's much smaller and less comprehensive than they hoped legal victories were mostly overturned with the Supreme Court likely to reduce further still or outright overturn the last outstanding case.

    Other than the good PR that they received as the press still accuses Samsung and other OEMs of copying Apple to this day even for features that the other OEMs actually adopted first, there never was any ability for any war against Samsung or Android to succeed. The precedent set by the Supreme Court when they ruled for Microsoft over Apple more than 25 years ago made sure of that.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 27
    I will go ahead and answer for him.  SOG as a disciplined investor you should know that you buy Apple for the long term.  Short term price fluctuations do not matter for the end game.  The end game for me is a pre-determined price that I have set before I exit.  I know it will hit the price I have set because Apple is very strong and the outlook is positive.  The economy is in decent shape and besides a questionable China outlook, the tax repatriation will offset that.  If it does not hit this set price in the short term I will be patient until it does as I know that it will eventually.  Taking a daily pull back hit is just part of the game.  Play it to win.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    sog35 said:
    This one takes the cake.

    Supply restraints on a phone that won't be released for another 7 months.

    But I do like the $180 target price.

    Anyway, I bought more Apple shares today. But I also sold covered calls on those shares as insurance. I don't trust Wall Street at all.
    I also bought more shares today, in the pre-market.  Not having sold any, I'm now at 7500 shares.


    I haven't bought shares for some time, but most of them were  bought mid 2014. Split 14 times since then. Interesting investment. My initial buy wasn't all that much, at $16.93 per share for 7,000 shares. I've added a few since then, but none since 2008.

    what started out as a relatively modest investment has turned out to be the most successful investment I've made. I've since added just a small number of other investments. I bought Amazon shortly after it came out, but sold at about $250. I had google for a while, but not for a couple of years. I bought Facebook when it came out, and bought more when it dropped to $20. I now also have Alibaba, which I'm very confident in for a long haul investment. And I'm looking at Snap. Snap is a risk, but there's far more upside than downside there, so it may be worthwhile.

    i have a few other investments. I have only one index fund from Vangard, which does well. No managed accounts. I totally agree with Buffet, managed accounts are stupid.
    edited February 2017 SpamSandwichpatchythepirateradarthekat
  • Reply 8 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member

    jcdinkins said:
    I will go ahead and answer for him.  SOG as a disciplined investor you should know that you buy Apple for the long term.  Short term price fluctuations do not matter for the end game.  The end game for me is a pre-determined price that I have set before I exit.  I know it will hit the price I have set because Apple is very strong and the outlook is positive.  The economy is in decent shape and besides a questionable China outlook, the tax repatriation will offset that.  If it does not hit this set price in the short term I will be patient until it does as I know that it will eventually.  Taking a daily pull back hit is just part of the game.  Play it to win.
    For a stock like Apple, I agree with Buffet, the aim is to hold the shares, as he says, "forever". That may not be realistic, but it's the goal. I'm considering Facebook and Alibaba in the same category.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 9 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member

    sog35 said:
    sog35 said:
    This one takes the cake.

    Supply restraints on a phone that won't be released for another 7 months.

    But I do like the $180 target price.

    Anyway, I bought more Apple shares today. But I also sold covered calls on those shares as insurance. I don't trust Wall Street at all.
    I also bought more shares today, in the pre-market.  Not having sold any, I'm now at 7500 shares.



    $1 million in Apple shares. Damn.

    How do you handle it when shares drop 5% in a day? That's like losing $50k?

    or when it dropped 30% last year?  That's like $300,000?  I know long term Apple is probably strong, but still. 
    You do what I do, you totally ignore fluctuations. I ignored it during the recession. I ignored it end of 2015, and I'll ignore them moving forwards. Investing successfully means that you never panic. If you have cash, you pile on. Of course, you need to have a good company. On paper, I "lost" millions when the stock dropped as much as it did several times. But by ignoring that, and buying more, when possible, those holding went to ever higher levels, as I'm confident they will continue to do.

    i fully believe that Apple will cross $200 at some point. Will that happen this young year? Maybe, but not likely. Over the next several years it will though. But it may regress in between now and then. Don't worry. Again, as Buffet said in his yearly note, the worst thing is your fear. Don't be afraid.
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 10 of 27
    @sog35

    Samsung is Samsung's #1 supplier and customer. And Samsung has plenty of customers other than Apple and itself. Some of whom are other suppliers such as those who sell components to Apple but then turn around and have Samsung manufacture them, as is often the case with TSMC and Ax SOCs that TSMC cannot make themselves, or at least not at the volume that Apple needs.

    I have seen a lot of Apple fans claim that Apple needs to retaliate against Samsung like this, but Samsung is the #1 component company in the world with tons of customers. It would not hurt Samsung nearly as much as such people believe but it WOULD impact the quality and availability of Apple products as Samsung is #1 in components for a reason. I bet more than a few Mac owners wish that Samsung was supplying the Apple designed PC CPUs instead of relying on Intel, who is frequently late and often go years without significant performance improvements.  
  • Reply 11 of 27
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    freeper said:
    @sog35

    Samsung is Samsung's #1 supplier and customer. And Samsung has plenty of customers other than Apple and itself. Some of whom are other suppliers such as those who sell components to Apple but then turn around and have Samsung manufacture them, as is often the case with TSMC and Ax SOCs that TSMC cannot make themselves, or at least not at the volume that Apple needs.

    I have seen a lot of Apple fans claim that Apple needs to retaliate against Samsung like this, but Samsung is the #1 component company in the world with tons of customers. It would not hurt Samsung nearly as much as such people believe but it WOULD impact the quality and availability of Apple products as Samsung is #1 in components for a reason. I bet more than a few Mac owners wish that Samsung was supplying the Apple designed PC CPUs instead of relying on Intel, who is frequently late and often go years without significant performance improvements.  
    What? Where are you getting this from? Since when does Samsung make products for TSMC, which is the worlds largest foundry, and much bigger than Samsung? Sounds like you're just making it up.

    so last year, Apple split off the manufacturing of their chips to both Samsung and TSMC. We all know this. TSMC never "gave" Samsung part of that order,
    Apple did. In order to do so, Apple had to engineer the chips for both processes. TSMC's 16nm process was found to be 20% more power efficient than Samsung's 14nm process, which is one reason Apple is having TSMC do all of their SoCs this year.

    when Apple moved from Samsung, Samsung lost almost 40% of their semiconductor business. So don't give us nonsense about what happened. You can read the truth in the professional computer sites and the financial pages. Samsung had to offer discounts to obtain more customers to replace Apple.

    you sound like a Samsung plant who doesn't know what he's talking about.
    edited February 2017 SpamSandwichpatchythepirateradarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    edited February 2017 patchythepiraterandominternetpersonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 27
    melgross said:

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    melgross said:

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    I'm being lazy here, but do OLEDs also suffer from image burn-in?
  • Reply 15 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    What I am curious about though is exactly what OLED panels Apple will be using. So we know that at first, at least, they will be from Samsung. But Samsung makes different panels. The one they use for their flagship phones are the Pentile displays that use two green subpixels to get display brightness up. But that leads to problems.

    one problem is that while is really slightly greenish. That apparently can't be helped because the brightness of the red and blue subpixels can't be brought up enough to sompensate. The second problems is that at the same resolution as an LCD screen, b3cause of the extra green sub pixel, thgraphics and text look coarse. This is a major reason why those displays have such a high resolution. A Pentile display needs to be about 30% higher Rez to look as sharp as an LCD.

    so what will Apple be doing here? I know it's said that Samsung owns 97% of all OLED patents, but Apple has some important OLED patents as well, though just a few. A major question I've been asking, but can't get an answer to, is what Apple has with the Apple Watch display. That display is rated to 1,000 nits in direct sunlight, which is much brighter than any other commercial OLED display. Samsung's reaches over 600 nits in direct sunlight, but much dimmer otherwise. So the question is whether Apple has done something special with that OLED to get to that brightness, over twice the original Apple Watch brightness, or whether they just boost it way up because they figure that people don't look at a Watch display for anywhere near the time they look at a smartphone display, and so the shortened display life isn't an issue.

    putting my watch under a 200x high quality microscope I see the pixel config is a strange one. We have a rectangular red sub, then separated by a large black space, is an almost square green sub, larger than the red in height. Then alongside those two. A long blue sub. An odd configuration I'm not familiar with anywhere else. Lots of black between the sub pixels.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    melgross said:

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    melgross said:

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    I'm being lazy here, but do OLEDs also suffer from image burn-in?
    Yes they do. Look up Samsung S phones burn in and you'll find a lot of articles, posts and pictures. But over the years it's been getting much better. Remember when plasmas first came out? There was a lot of burn in, but over time, it became much better - just in time for plasma to go belly up in the market because of LCD.
    edited February 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 27
    To me all this data inconsistent according to this article single OLED screen will cost $71.67 and Samsung's deal states that 5.5-inch OLED will cost $25.90 per screen, which doesn’t add up. All the reports claiming shortage of OLED giving me a feeling of fearmongering. iPhone 7 with 256 GB cost $916 + Apple Care and it's over $1000. iPhone 7+ 256GB model is $1047 without Apple Care. So when you constantly seeing articles stating that new iPhone 8 will cost $1000 which model are they talking about? Apple haven’t changed their price range for the past 5 years or so and now $1000 should be a scary number? It feels like a hook that has no real meat to it. There is no real shortages of screens, but the shortage of suppliers that are willing to deal with Apples strict quality control!
    edited February 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 27
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,895member
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    melgross said:

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    melgross said:

    brucemc said:
    ....
    Rather than a sea change in iPhone screen technology spanning an entire line in one update, Cihra believes that the technology will be limited to the high-end anniversary "iPhone 8," expected to surface in the fall. As a side-effect, explosive growth in iPhone sales in one year that may have been induced by a screen shift away from LED and towards OLED will be spread over up to 3 years and have a greater effect on stock price over time than it would have had otherwise.
    I don't buy into the argument that any super cycle would have been due to shift from LED to OLED.  iPhones have always had one of, if not the, best displays of any smartphone.  Only an *extreme* minority have any interest in the underlying display technology .  The interest in an iPhone 8/X that might induce a larger upgrade cycle is due a new design, new features, new functions - an overall wow factor.  OLED is a part that might enable that, but to state that such is driven by OLED is ridiculous.  This simply furthers the view that analysts have no clue about Apple or the products they sell.
    What I think is happening here is that OLED displays are simpler to manufacture because instead of three layers - filters, LCD and backlight, plus two power supplies, one for the LCD and one for the backlight, OLED offers simplicity, and thinness. It also offers bendable displays. I hope Apple won't go the curved edge Samsung has gone with their phones, unless they come up with a real use case, as Samsung has failed to do so far.

    but OLED also offers pretty much edgeless designs, which is extremely difficult to do with LCDs. There is just one manufacturer of edgeless LCD panels, and they are a small company, and don't make the ips displays Apple needs.

    you can also have holes in an OLED display which is also almost impossible with an LCD, and, in addition, there is the possibility of the always on time, weather, or other function that Android OLED phones offer because of the tiny power draw when just a few words or graphics are displayed at once. We can't get that with LCD either.

    its these features, and possibly more, that makes OLED so desirable. In the past, the deficits of going OLED overpowered the benefits.

    so, yes, OLED offers a lot for Apple, as long as they are now convinced that the longetivity and quality of the displays are up to their standard, and the price is right. As going OLED is what makes these features possible, then sure, going OLED will lead to the increase in sales.


    I'm being lazy here, but do OLEDs also suffer from image burn-in?
    Yes they do. Look up Samsung S phones burn in and you'll find a lot of articles, posts and pictures. But over the years it's been getting much better. Remember when plasmas first came out? There was a lot of burn in, but over time, it became much better - just in time for plasma to go belly up in the market because of LCD.
    I love plasmas.

    Wish I could still buy them. They are so much better than LCD trash today.
    The best plasmas were pretty good. But truthfully, the best LCD sets today are better. Even my now old Samsung 61" rear projection with its three large LED lighting has better color. In fact, it has the best color generally available. I wish companies were still making those, but people don't want them. It's got to be thin, and then thinner.
  • Reply 19 of 27
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,132moderator
    jcdinkins said:
    I will go ahead and answer for him.  SOG as a disciplined investor you should know that you buy Apple for the long term.  Short term price fluctuations do not matter for the end game.  The end game for me is a pre-determined price that I have set before I exit.  I know it will hit the price I have set because Apple is very strong and the outlook is positive.  The economy is in decent shape and besides a questionable China outlook, the tax repatriation will offset that.  If it does not hit this set price in the short term I will be patient until it does as I know that it will eventually.  Taking a daily pull back hit is just part of the game.  Play it to win.
    Bingo!  Plus, there's a growing dividend (minor factor), and I use options (covered calls when the stock runs up,a lot, bull call spreads and short puts when the stock dips, to gain even more when the stock recovers).  Finally, I watch Apple very closely, and I understand how, over time, businesses are valued.  I have the patience of a long-term investor, but also the skills of a trader.  And I run a small FB group with ten other very talented and hand-picked traders, all of whom have some focus on Apple, but trade pretty much everything as opportunity presents.  I've learned a great deal from their strategies and contributed my own, and made good friends along the way.  Finally, AAPL is not my only position, and I also keep several hundred $k on the sidelines to use when the market, or an individual stock, goes temporarily sour.  Currently applying some of those funds to GILD, which I'll hold for years if necessary to take advantage of the current overly bearish sentiment on that stock. 
    edited February 2017
  • Reply 20 of 27
    anomeanome Posts: 1,297member

    So supply constraints are going to restrict availability of a feature that may, or may not, be available in a phone model that may, or may not, be on sale in 7 months time.

    I'll add that due to a lack of availability of Di-Lithium doped Kyber Crystals, the protective force-field I predicted earlier will only be available on the iPhone 8X++ with the Unicorn Horn finish.

    Do I win at punditry now?

    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.