Trojan Horse Partnering Strategy for Emerging Electronics Applications

In the value chain for established electronics markets, material suppliers and manufacturing companies engage directly with the brand owners/end users, and technology developers must engage with the material suppliers and manufacturing companies to move downstream, relying on the credibility of these industry established companies. In the emerging printed, flexible, and organic electronics partnering landscape, companies throughout the value chain have struggled to innovate around undefined applications causing lofty industry expectations that failed to live up the hype. Without many success stories to point to, the best practices for forming relationships remain a mystery for most.

A survey of 73 executives active in different portions of the supply chain shows how different segments approach partnering and enables insight into how to approach their partnering strategy in the challenging arena. Based on the data from this survey, and detailed interviews with many stakeholders, a new strategy – the “Trojan Horse partnership” – is a more effective approach to this undefined space. Material suppliers and manufacturers use the technology developers to access brand owners and tap into downstream partnership networks. The appeal of the technology developer’s novel approach provides an avenue to penetrate the walls of the electronics brand owners and grow from within these relationships, while the materials and manufacturing companies offer resources and credibility to tech developers.

The shift to Trojan Horse partnering requires new approaches and tactics. Those looking to engage with early-stage technology developers should scout for technology, but as technology developers mature, technology scouting will give way to “partnership scouting” – scouting by assessing partnership networks. In addition, material suppliers can further the networks of its existing technology developer partners, through the use of its own technology scouting groups and existing relationships from other application spaces.

As this type of partnering becomes common practice, material suppliers and manufacturers will need to market themselves as attractive partner candidates to the technology developers. Companies that have the structure to move quickly and supply even small amounts of capital will have an advantage as it will lower the engagement risk for the technology developers. Material suppliers and manufacturers will also need the discipline to abandon the “sell something now” mentality that creates unrealistic expectations and timelines, and is notorious for euthanizing genuine long term growth opportunities.

Source: Lux Research report “Trojan Horse Partnering: Bringing Materials to Market for Emerging Electronics” — client registration required.

LG Invests More in OLED TVs, but Capacity Claims Exaggerated

LG is investing KRW 706 billion ($655 million) in a new organic light-emitting diode (OLED) TV manufacturing plant, which it expects to begin producing on gen 9 (2160 mm x 2460 mm) substrates in 2014, with a production capacity of nearly two million 55-inch TVs annually. The investment in the new OLED TV line comes as LG announced 100 preorders for its $12,000, 55-inch diagonal OLED TVs produced on its existing line. LG also set aggressive growth goals of 15% for its flat-panel display business as a whole, which includes both OLED and liquid crystal displays (LCDs).

As Samsung and LG race to be seen as the most innovative display company in the world, their announcements on OLED will play a major role. As Samsung continues to tout flexible displays (client registration required), LG is staking its claim in TVs. However, the announcements are intended to make the companies look innovative in the volatile and perception-driven world of consumer electronics, and do not reflect the current state of the technology. If LG plans to use gen 9 glass substrates, it will have to use solution processing, which may be a good fit eventually for its white-red-green-blue (WRGB) OLEDs, but the processing yields will not be sufficient for mass production. Expect less than 7,000 total OLED TVs to be shipped across the entire industry in 2014, and LG’s line to be opened later than it anticipates (see the report “Cutting Up the LCD Pie: Calculating the Billion-Dollar Slices from Display Innovation” — client registration required).

Steven Chu steps down at U.S. Department of Energy, leaving a mixed legacy

Last week brought the widely expected news that Steven Chu will be stepping down as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Chu has been a hero to scientists and clean energy advocates, but on his watch the DOE has made some questionable decisions, particularly from a commercialization and business standpoint. That said, Chu has also laid the groundwork for a strong legacy of energy innovation – if those initiatives produce results, he may justly be regarded as one of the most important DOE Secretaries since the department was created in 1977.

Unfortunately for Chu and DOE, the name “Solyndra” will appear in the first paragraph of most appraisals of his term – the DOE’s ill-fated $535 million loan guarantee (client registration required) to the Silicon Valley solar panel maker became a rallying cry for opposition to the Obama administration’s clean energy investments. Other recipients of DOE loan guarantees and other largesse, including A123 Systems (client registration required), Beacon Power (client registration required), EnerDel, and Abound Solar (client registration required), have also filed for bankruptcy. While there was a case for deploying government funds when private investors largely stopped lending during the financial crisis, the DOE loan guarantee program mixed investments in reliable projects, like solar power plants using established technologies, with funds for firms like Solyndra that faced steep technical and market risks. It was highly likely that several would fail, but DOE either underestimated the risks or wasn’t well prepared for the political fallout (or some combination of both), and arguably hurt the cause of government support for new energy technologies – previously a point of bipartisan consensus.

Chu’s DOE also showed commercial naïveté in its claim that it could help bring 1 million electric vehicles to U.S. roads by 2015 – and President Obama personally cited Chu’s assurances in defending the administration’s focus on electric vehicles. While the DOE target included plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) like the Chevy Volt, as well as all-electric vehicles (EVs), only around 250,000 such vehicles will realistically be in operation in the U.S by the end of 2015 (see the report “Small Batteries, Big Sales: The Unlikely Winners in the Electric Vehicle Market” — client registration required). Anemic sales to date of PH/EVs also belie such optimism, and just before Chu stepped aside, DOE began publicly backing away from the goal – suggesting that DOE’s EV enthusiasm may not have been the best use of its resources.

What’s more, DOE has largely been on the sidelines of the most important energy story of Obama’s first term – the phenomenal boom in domestic gas and oil production, driven by technologies like hydraulic fracturing. To some extent that’s only right – by the time the technology (which had benefitted from DOE support in decades past) was ready for prime time, the industry hardly needed further help from DOE. However, given the impact this production will have on the energy and climate picture in the U.S., and the remaining technology and policy needs to help access these resources safely and make the best use of them, it’s surprising how little focus they’ve received (barely meriting a mention in Chu’s review of his term in his resignation letter).

Despite these stumbles, history may well look kindly on Chu’s tenure, because programs he’s championed have the potential to create a generation of impactful new technologies and keep the U.S. a center of innovation in energy. Through the network of 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers, and especially the new Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), the DOE is funding research on really novel technologies with a breadth, depth, and purpose beyond its previous basic science efforts. ARPA-E, in particular, is well-positioned to help fill a void left by venture capitalists that are (wisely, by their financial standards) increasingly reluctant to invest in early-stage energy technologies. If these programs help shepherd along impactful energy technologies that that come to the market over the next decade, they’ll have a greater impact than even a successful Solyndra would have, and will validate Chu’s initiatives.

Given the ups and downs of Chu’s tenure, who should Obama tap to replace him? Some favor another academic, like Shirley Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or Ernest Moniz of the MIT Energy Initiative, to continue to build DOE’s innovation efforts. Others argue that DOE’s commercial blind spot argues for a businessperson like Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers. While a course correction is needed, and energy business acumen at DOE would be welcome, a utility executive may not be the best steward of Chu’s innovation legacy (and may sit uneasily atop what’s still largely a scientific agency). A business leader with more innovation experience could serve admirably – GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been floated, though seems unlikely to serve. Otherwise, given the controversies DOE has weathered and the need to defend its budget in an era of sequestration and discretionary spending cuts, a more seasoned politician might also be a wise choice to follow Chu. Someone like former (moderate) Republican governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman or past North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan could serve to consolidate Chu’s gains in long-term innovation, but would still be inclined to pivot the agency more toward the pressing issues of the day.

Conductive Inks and Pastes are Set to Grow, but Incumbents, not Innovation, Dominate

Much of the promise of printed electronics is in the potential to manufacture devices through low-cost, high-throughput manufacturing. However, in order to realize this potential, suitable materials sets must impart the technical specifications of the device while being compatible with solution processing – and without becoming too costly themselves. All told, the market for printed electronics materials will rise to $2.6 billion in 2017. While start-up companies and venture capitalists alike insist that innovative new ITO replacement and OLED materials can change the game, opaque conductive silver inks continue to lead the way as existing applications grow and new applications emerge.

Many applications such as membrane switches, medical, solar, radio frequency identification (RFID), touchscreens, printed circuit boards (PCBs), displays, and automotive either currently use or look to begin using printed conductors. The overall opaque conductor market is set to grow to $2.4 billion in 2017 from $1.4 billion in 2012, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11%. Medical and RFID applications will be amongst the fastest growing, as packaging and apparel RFID expands and medical applications such as disposable defibrillator and electrocardiography (EKG) electrodes rise.

While the recent price volatility of silver has renewed interest in replacing silver in favor of cheaper and more predictable alternatives such as silver nanoparticles, copper reduction, and silver-coated copper inks and pastes, the majority will disappoint in the near to medium term. In fact, silver nanoparticles will be the only one of these technologies to capture a meaningful share away from silver paste before 2017, since it can enable thinner silicon wafers in solar cells through non-contact printing.

While the future may open up new streams of revenue for the new solutions in labs today, savvy innovation executives should set appropriate expectations rather than inappropriate hockey sticks.

Source: Lux Research report “Inking Money: The Prospects for Materials in Printed Electronics” — client registration required.

Lifetime will limit the potential for Belectric’s Konarka acquisition

Solar project developer Belectric (client registration required) has acquired the European operation of Konarka (client registration required), the bankrupt bulk heterojunction (BHJ) organic photovoltaic (OPV) developer (see the report “Looking for a Future in Organic Photovoltaics” — client registration required). The acquisition will be part of the Belectric’s new business called Belectric OPV, which plans to further develop the technology and focus on serving automotive and building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) applications (see the report “Building Integrated Photovoltaics: Moving Beyond Showcase Projects” — client registration required). Belectric plans to set up manufacturing capabilities using the technology in the next few months.

As part of the trend of developers like Hanergy (client registration required) moving upstream into module production, Belectric has been an aggressive pursuer of thin-film technologies – witness its work with First Solar (client registration required) and Solar Frontier. However, the performance metrics of Konarka’s OPV technology make it poorly suited for BIPV and automotive applications. Potential automotive and BIPV customers will have a hard time overlooking the high cost per watt and low efficiency of the technology in order to take advantage of OPV’s form factor, weight, and visual properties, like its diverse color offerings. However, customers in automotive and BIPV will be particularly wary of OPV’s lifetime, which does not even make it five years. Belectric needs to focus on its R&D efforts to improve the lifetime and also work with barrier film developers, as water and oxygen contamination are a leading failure mechanism. Unless the lifetime improves, the manufacturing facilities will not be producing much of anything, much as Konarka’s (client registration required) plant. However, the challenges and long timelines ahead mean Belectric should be wary of investing significant resources in it.

Microsoft Goes Big On Touch Screens with Perceptive Pixel, but Capacitive Touch

Microsoft recently announced that it has reached a deal to acquire touch screen manufacturer Perceptive Pixel. Microsoft has made integrated support for multitouch a key point in discussing Windows 8, which it plans to release in late 2012, and believes that bringing a touch screen manufacturer into its Office Division will help it access markets like conference rooms. Perceptive Pixel specializes in producing large-area projected capacitive multitouch screens that measure up to 82 inches. At the time of the announcement, its 82-inch touchscreen displays cost $80,000.

While Microsoft has enjoyed long-standing dominance in operating system software and strong success in gaming consoles, its forays into consumer electronics, like the Zune MP3 player and the Windows Phone operating system, have seen limited market penetration. Its other attempt at a large touchscreen device, the PixelSense tablet, has been held back for years by a high price tag ($8,400 as of June 2012), and Perceptive Pixel’s screens will clearly need to drop dramatically in cost to allow broad market penetration.

While the software giant is correct that the multitouch device market will continue to grow, capacitive touch is an expensive technology to achieve large-area screens. Other approaches are much more economical for many mainstream uses: For example, Tactonic (Client registration required) offers a technology that could enable lower-cost large-area devices because of its modular construction and optical sensor developer isiQiri (Client registration required) claims to have $140 sensors for 55-inch diagonal televisions. Don’t expect large capacitive touch screens to storm the market – but note that Microsoft is more likely interested in exploiting its new partner’s software and user interface concepts, like its storyboard and application programming interface (API) offerings.

Smartphone Market Will Ring Up Largest Share of the OLED Display Market Through 2017

OLEDs have found their market in smartphones, and electrophoretic displays have found theirs in e-readers. But in what other markets can these technologies compete? In a recent Lux Research report, analysts projected market share for each display technology in several prospective application markets. This week’s graphic focuses on projected growth through 2017 in the key application markets for OLEDs. In total, these markets add up to approximately $11 billion in 2017, up from $1.9 billion in 2011, a 34% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). In addition, analysts found:

  • The already healthy market for OLED smartphones will continue to expand as the cost of small-area OLEDs decline. Samsung has grown market share with OLED enabled phones, and other smart phone developers such as Nokia, HTC, and Panasonic have or will soon follow suit. In total, over one-third of all smartphones in 2017 will have an OLED screen, corresponding to a $9.5 billion market in 2017 for OLED displays, representing a 32% CAGR over the 2011 market of $1.8 billion.
  • Smartphone functions steal wind from other small area OLED applications. Other devices that could use a small-area OLED display – music players, handheld video games, picture frames, and digital cameras – will total an approximately $453 million OLED display market in 2017, growing 62% annually from the $25 million they accounted for in 2011. OLED growth will be slow because sales of these devices will either remain static or decline, partly because many smartphones offer the same functions.
  • Industry dynamics limit tablet market. Apple’s iPad currently commands more than 75% of the tablet market. Yet Apple is unlikely to switch the iPad’s current LCD display to OLED technology before 2017, since that would grant some control of its supply chain to competitor Samsung. Also, although multimedia tablets can benefit from the display performance and light weight of OLEDs, the technology’s high cost compared to LCDs will create further headwinds. Overall, OLEDs will appear in 3% of the non-Apple tablets, reaching a $397 million market in 2017 – up from a market of less than $5 million in 2011.
  • Market for televisions will be limited due to lifetime and cost issues. The picture quality of OLED TVs made a splash at the 2012 Consumer Electronics Show and other exhibitions. But widespread commercial adoption will be slow because, unlike LCDs, increasing the size of OLED displays significantly increases their cost. New materials, such as metal oxide TFTs, and processing equipment will improve but not reverse this reality over the next five years. There are no commercial TVs using OLEDs today, and in total, the 2017 market for OLED TVs will be $325 million.

Source: Lux Research report “Cutting Up the LCD Pie: Calculating the Billion-Dollar Slices from Display Innovation.”

Novaled Going Public with Clear Near-Term Value, but Long-Term Challenges Remain

Novaled (Client registration required) has filed with the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for its proposed initial public offering (IPO). The company is a developer of dopant and transport materials for organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays and lighting. (For more on these markets see the reports “Sorting Hype From Reality in Printed, Organic, and Flexible Display Technologies” and “Finding the End of the Tunnel for OLED Lighting.” (Client registration required)

Novaled seeks to raise $200 million in its IPO, which will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) or NASDAQ. The company’s financial records, which it released with its filings, indicate revenues of €6.8 million and €17.4 million in 2010 and 2011 respectively, reaching profitability in 2011. This development primarily derives from its materials, produced by BASF, being incorporated into commercial Samsung Mobile Display (SMD) smartphone displays. SMD accounted for 59% of its 2011 revenue.

The application in SMD smartphones also indicates that Novaled has a validated product for improving OLED performance through power efficiency and lifetime enhancement.

Smartphones will be the dominant application for OLED displays through 2017 (see the report “Cutting Up the LCD Pie: Calculating the Billion-Dollar Slices from Display Innovation” (Client registration required). With this application market the power savings of the material is most important to extend battery life, while the short lifecycles of smartphones minimizes the impact of lifetime enhancement.

However, while 75% of Novaled’s revenue came from Korean firms, much of its remaining revenue came from Europe – indicating that it’s not doing much work with Japanese, Taiwanese, and Chinese OLED display developers such as AUO and Sony. These players will inevitably begin to take OLED display market share from SMD and LG Display.

In addition, Novaled’s work in Europe indicates that it believes that OLED lighting remains a viable market, as it claims in the SEC filing that the OLED lighting market will be at least $3.5 billion in 2018. By contrast, we project a $58 million 2020 market for OLED lighting (Client registration required). Novaled is well poised now for near-term growth through its supply of SMD and LG Display, but faces a rockier future if it continues to rest its hopes on significant revenue from OLED lighting and static OLED display market shares.

The Lux Top 10

During the fourth quarter of 2011, Lux Research analysts profiled 262 companies across 12 different emerging technology domains in the fourth quarter of 2011.Here are the 10 they thought were the most compelling. Some, such as Proterro, stand out for their disruptive potential. Others, such as Diamon-Fusion, made the grade with well-executed business strategies. The competition for a Top 10 spot will only get hotter as we expand our portfolio of coverage domains to include Energy Electronics and a broadened green buildings portfolio.

1. Diamon-Fusion International – Positive – Advanced Materials

With its transparent silicone film used to coat silica-based substrates, Diamon-Fusion is one of the few startups in the protective coatings space with a strong track record in both technology and business execution.

2. Proterro – Wait-and-see – Bio-based Materials and Components

Proterro is commercializing a strain of photosynthetic organism that produces sugars at levels ten times more productive than sugarcane and in a configuration that could deliver the holy grail of “five cent” sugars (i.e. five cents per pound). But it will need funding and downstream partners to scale its potentially breakthrough technology beyond a lab prototype.

3. Topell Energy – Positive – Alternative Fuels

Working with German utility RWE, Topell Energy scaled its first commercial torrefaction facility in 2011 to convert wood waste into bio-coal pellets. Topell is a leader in the torrefaction space and is positioned to capitalize on healthy incentives in the EU for coal/bio-coal co-firing.

4. Spirae: Wait-and-see – Smart Grid

With the growing grid penetration of renewable energy sources and the inherent difficulty in managing their fluctuating inputs, Spirae could be in a prime position to support utility infrastructure with its comprehensive control and management system – if it can prove its concept on a large scale and secure long-term utility contracts.

5. eIQ Energy – Positive – Solar Systems

One of the few DC/DC optimizer companies staying with stand-alone hardware, eiQ partners with engineering, procurement, and construction companies that can realize its technology’s value in the strong commercial market segment.

6. Pervasive Displays – Wait-and-see – Printed Electronics

Using a technology honed for the One Laptop Per Child Program, Pervasive Displays produces low-power electrophoretic display modules that target application developers for warehouse signage and electronic shelf labels. While Pervasive has power advantages from its control functions, it will need to drive its costs down to compete with more established competitors and access a broader market.

7. Kurion – Positive – Water

A high-risk but high-profit U.S. nuclear contamination control company that rapidly scaled to clean up the Japanese Fukushima radioactive cooling water problem. The work generated massive windfall profits when no one else on the planet was prepared to deal with the problem.

8. Hycrete – Wait-and-see – Green Buildings

Hycrete’s water barrier technology improves the durability of concrete infrastructure at prices significantly cheaper than the incumbent membrane-based approach. But it will need to establish partnerships with well-known infrastructure or chemical companies in order to gain market access in the conservative infrastructure segment.

 

9. Citic Guoan MGL – Wait-and-see – China Innovation, Electric Vehicles

In the sea of Chinese lithium-ion battery developers, state-owned MGL stands out for its traction in China’s electric and hybrid-electric bus market. Its strong government relationships could provide ready channels to market for would-be foreign technology partners. But competition with other domestic firms such as China Aviation Lithium Battery Corporation (CALB) will be fierce.

10. Ablynx – Wait-and-see – Formulation and Delivery

Ablynx engineers its “nanobodies” – therapeutic proteins derived from antibodies in camel blood – to specifically deliver small molecule drugs to a target site. Despite stiff competition in the saturated antibody field and a multitude of emerging targeting strategies (such as DNA aptamers), Ablynx has snagged more than its share of heavyweight partners (Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Norvartis, Pfizer), and is generating tens of millions in revenue to assist in its own healthy development pipeline.

Lux Innovation Grid Highlights Viable Partners for Display Developers

There’s been no shortage of investment in printed, flexible, and organic electronics aimed at driving next-generation displays, organic photovoltaics (OPV), transparent conductive films (TCFs), smart packaging, and thin-film batteries. Yet, challenged by the inherent technical hurdles and long development cycles, few firms have turned their potential into big cash returns. Those that eventually succeed will do so by building partnerships today that pool expertise in materials, equipment and device development.

This week’s graphic expressly focuses on display developers, and applies the Lux Innovation Grid to compare how potential partners compare in Technical Value and Business Execution. The field encompasses more mature technologies, like small molecule organic light-emitting diode (OLED) and electrophoretic displays, in addition to emerging technologies, including electrochromic and electrofluidic displays.

A glance at companies comprising the Dominant Quadrant clearly illustrates that OLED materials and equipment have a clear headstart over more emergent technologies like electrochromic and electrofluidic displays. OLED displays have found success thus far primarily in mobile displays, but development of larger displays like televisions is underway. Notable players include materials developers like Universal Display Corporation (UDC) and Novaled, in addition to equipment makers like Kateeva. These companies also comprise the majority of the “Positive” takes on the chart due to the strength of OLED technologies in general and the solutions that these companies can provide.

E Ink stands out for its Technical Value and Business Execution. The former derives from its high score in technology and intellectual property, the latter from its strong partnerships and management team. In addition, E Ink scores the only “Strong Positive” on our chart. This lofty position should not come as a surprise, since E Ink has a nearly 100% market share of the electrophoretic market, which is commonly found in e-readers like the Amazon Kindle.

Emerging reflective and flexible technologies are High-potential. Particularly for OLEDs, the transition to flexible displays requires new materials and substrates to protect the OLEDs from atmospheric contamination. New materials such as flexible glass from Corning Display or barrier films for plastic substrates from Tera-Barrier can enable flexible OLEDs.

Emerging reflective displays, like electrofluidic displays from Gamma Dynamics and cholesteric liquid crystal displays (LCDs) from Kent Displays, also fall into the High Potential category. Competing with electrophoretics will not be easy for the reflective technology developers, as both companies score above 3 on Technical Value, but below 3 on Business Execution – due to low scores on barriers to growth and revenue per employee.

Source: Lux Research report “Finding the Winning and Losing Companies in Printed, Flexible, and Organic Electronics.”