Samsung Display (SDC), a subsidiary of Samsung, has been developing its own OLEDoS (OLED on Silicon) technology. However, there are reports now indicating that Samsung’s smartphone division plans to adopt Sony’s OLEDoS technology for integration into Samsung’s XR devices.

According to the Korean media “The Elec,” Samsung’s MX division has decided to utilize the technology from Sony instead of the technology from the group’s SDC, reflecting Samsung’s need for a new technology manager to oversee new semiconductor devices (referring to electronic components, such as OLEDs and transistors).

This newly created position for device development must oversee the technological advancement of all of Samsung’s electronic businesses, including Samsung MX, DS (chip division), displays, and motors. If Samsung’s subsidiaries had collaborated closely from the outset, then Samsung’s MX division might have adopted SDC’s technology instead of Sony’s. A similar situation has also occurred with the glass substrate developed by Samsung Electronics.

“The Elec” believes it is strange that SDC has not collaborated with the group’s companies on OLEDoS technology, as SDC has expertise in glass processing. This highlights a lack of clear roles and responsibilities within Samsung, which is a significant waste of internal resources.

OLEDoS and glass substrate microdisplays require close cooperation between departments such as semiconductors, displays, circuit boards, and display glass processing technology. If these departments are well integrated, it could bring opportunities for Samsung, as the company has departments capable of handling all related technologies.

However, the current situation does not reflect this. SDC initiated the M project at the end of 2022, aimed at developing OLEDoS and LED on Silicon technology. But SDC losing to Sony now means the former will lose valuable production experience.

(Photo credit: Samsung)

Apple CEO Tim Cook recently made the official announcement that the company’s inaugural spatial computing product, Vision Pro, is set to go on sale on February 2nd in the United States. According to a report by TechNews, due to the limited preparation of Vision Pro units, with an estimated quantity of only 60,000 to 80,000, there is a high likelihood that the product will sell out on the first day of its release.

TechNews cites the latest analysis from China’s TF Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who recently posted on X. According to Kuo, Apple has prepared only about 60,000 to 80,000 units of the Vision Pro before its launch, and due to the limited quantity, it is expected to quickly sell out once it hits the market.

Kuo also notes that despite questions about Apple’s lack of clear positioning and key features for the Vision Pro, as well as its relatively high price, the company is likely to sell out rapidly based on its groundbreaking technological innovations, creating a user experience that includes the illusion of mind-controlled interfaces. This, coupled with Apple’s strong core user base and a significant number of heavy users, should result in a swift sellout after the product’s release.

There are rumors suggesting that even though online ordering is possible, users may need to adjust the head circumference size, and Apple may prefer customers to try fitting it in person, which could lead to some consumers adopting a wait-and-see approach.

However, a user on the X platform, Aaron @aaronp613, discovered an encoding set as ‘ You will be able to use the Apple Store app to scan your face to pick the right size,’ indicating that users who are unable to visit stores for fitting may use the Apple Store app to scan their faces and order the correct Vision Pro size. Vision Pro requires a proper fit for functionality, involving a tight seal and correct headgear.

Apple has also introduced the Head Measure and Fit app to help developers test Vision Pro and determine the correct product size. Similar functionality may be built into the Apple Store app.

According to the latest data from TrendForce, global shipments of Apple Vision Pro are expected to reach 500,000 units in 2024.

(Image: Apple)

In late December 2023, Apple faced sales suspension of certain Apple Watch models in the United States due to concerns over patent infringement with Masimo’s blood oxygen detection technology.

Despite Apple’s appeal for reinstatement, regulatory authorities will review updated designs presented in mid-January 2024 to determine whether sales suspension persists. The potential financial and time costs associated with settlement or redesign may prompt Apple to reassess the necessity of incorporating blood oxygen detection.

TrendForce’s insight:       

Apple and Masimo’s Prolonged Legal Battle Set to Conclude in Mid-January 2024, Verdict on Blood Oxygen Monitoring Patent Infringement

Since the introduction of the S6 in 2020, Apple Watch has featured blood oxygen monitoring technology, addressing the demand for detecting hidden hypoxia and hypoxemia, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many smartwatches released during the same period also incorporated this functionality.

The blood oxygen monitoring technology in Apple Watch utilizes traditional pulse oximetry. The built-in sensor consists of red, green, infrared LEDs, and a photodiode sensors that converts light into electric current.

In essence, the technology relies on shining light onto wrist blood vessels to capture data on the difference between oxygenated and deoxygenated blood. Algorithms are then employed to determine the blood oxygen content.

Hence, this technology involves not only software-related analytical applications but also hardware configurations and usage considerations.

In fact, the infringement dispute between Apple and Masimo has been ongoing. Since 2020, Masimo has accused Apple of patent infringement. The legal battle continued until October 2023 when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in favor of Masimo, determining that Apple had indeed infringed. Consequently, in late 2023, a sales ban was imposed on certain models of Apple watches.

Despite Apple’s appeal allowing them to resume sales, regulatory authorities will reassess Apple’s redesigned models in mid-January 2024 to determine if improvements have been made.

Currently, the most severe impact of the ban is on models with blood oxygen functionality from the S6 onwards, including the S8, while only the SE series, without this feature, remains unaffected.

Diminished Need for Blood Oxygen Monitoring in Temporal Context – Apple May Reconsider Necessity

Given the current situation, there are several possible developments. Firstly, Apple may reapply for approval of a redesigned model by regulatory authorities, allowing them to resume sales after making necessary adjustments.

However, this approach involves not only software modifications but also hardware changes, encompassing testing, review processes, and relaunching, which could take several months. Considering Apple’s usual product release schedule in September each year, the company faces significant time pressure.

Secondly, Apple may opt for a settlement with Masimo. In the past, Apple has resolved disputes over chip technology and intentional slowdown of older devices with Qualcomm and in collective lawsuits with users.

However, settlement amounts were substantial, approximately $4.5 billion with Qualcomm and potentially up to $500 million in the case of collective user lawsuits. Compared to Apple Watch’s annual revenue in 2023, which may not have reached $20 billion, such outcomes may be less favorable for Apple.

If Apple cannot bypass Masimo’s patent through updates, settlement and payment of ongoing patent fees may become a necessary consideration. However, this to some extent may prompt Apple to reevaluate the necessity of the blood oxygen monitoring feature.

After all, for smartwatches equipped with blood oxygen monitoring is intended for health, not medical purposes. Besides Withings’ products, most smartwatches with this feature have not obtained approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In other words, they cannot be used for medical purposes.

While having more features at the same price would enhance the product value for consumers, the current context of the post-pandemic era and Apple’s user loyalty suggest that the demand for additional functionalities may vary.

If Apple does not intend to further integrate blood oxygen data with other physiological data, there might be room to reconsider the necessity of redeveloping the technology and the continued existence of the blood oxygen monitoring feature in future Apple Watches. The value of incorporating such functionality may be subject to greater flexibility in this scenario.

Read more

• [News] Apple Reportedly Accelerates Production of MR Headset “Vision Pro” for Potential February Launch
• [News] Apple Could Introduce Micro LED into Vision Pro, Replacing Existing Micro OLED Technology

(Photo credit: Apple)

During last year’s WWDC conference, Apple unveiled its first-ever head-mounted display product, the Vision Pro. At that time, the official statement mentioned a scheduled market release in early 2024, prompting speculation about the precise launch date of Vision Pro.

According to Chinese media outlet “Wall Street” citing information from supply chain sources, Vision Pro is expected to be launched in the United States on January 27. However, some media outlets have suggested that the mentioned “January 27” is likely in China time, translating to January 26 in U.S. time, as Apple rarely introduces new products on Saturdays.

However, Bloomberg Chief Correspondent Mark Gurman pointed out that Apple has experience launching new products on Saturdays, citing the initial iPad release. Gurman acknowledged that January 26 is indeed a date heard recently from several Chinese supply chain sources.

Regardless of the official release date for Vision Pro, current rumors align with the earlier predictions of TF International Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, who anticipated Vision Pro to hit shelves at the end of January or early February.

Additionally, Gurman reiterated on his own X platform that Apple plans to launch the retail version of Vision Pro in February.

(Image: Apple)

According to TechNews’ report, ever since the introduction of Apple’s AirPods, there’s been a surge in demand for true wireless earphones, resulting in a proliferation of knockoffs attempting to mimic the success of AirPods.

While these counterfeits may resemble AirPods in appearance and claim to match their functionality, can they truly serve as a substitute for the genuine article?

To explore this, the startup company Lumafield turned to CT scanning technology, originally used in medical diagnostics, now finding new applications in combating counterfeit electronics.

After examining the internal structure of genuine and counterfeit AirPods, Lumafield concluded that the intricate and precise design of the authentic AirPods is unmatched by counterfeit products. They elaborated on three aspects: batteries, circuitry, and build quality.

Batteries

Lumafield highlighted that batteries are crucial to the wireless convenience and flexibility of AirPods. Authentic AirPods feature meticulously designed button cell batteries in each earbud, aimed at snugly fitting the compact design and providing optimal power.

In contrast, counterfeit AirPods use lithium-ion pouch cell batteries, structurally simpler and potentially less safe than the genuine ones. The counterfeit AirPods simply cram rectangular batteries into circular spaces, lacking the tailored fit of the authentic design.

Circuitry

Regarding internal circuitry, Lumafield deemed the genuine AirPods a marvel of miniaturization and precision engineering.

Apple uses a combination of rigid and flexible printed circuit boards to densely pack components, ensuring effective utilization of every millimeter of internal space in AirPods. Counterfeits, on the other hand, are much simpler, composed of off-the-shelf components, compromising functionality with fewer microphones and control circuitry, thus affecting sound quality.

Build Quality

The stark contrast in overall build quality between authentic AirPods and counterfeits is evident. In one of the tested counterfeit AirPods, wireless charging is entirely absent (as no coils are visible in the scans), while the other counterfeit model lacks the magnets that snap the real AirPods case onto Apple’s Watch charger, despite having wireless charging coils.

Counterfeit AirPods even resort to using internal weights solely to mimic the weight of the genuine product. While these counterfeits may replicate the appearance of the original, the use of inferior materials not only impacts the tactile experience but also compromises the structural integrity and overall lifespan of the product.

Authentic vs. Counterfeit

Lumafield highlighted that the differences between these products and their counterfeits might seem subtle at first, but industrial CT scans revealed significant implications for performance and safety. Ultimately, choosing between authentic and counterfeit may not merely be a matter of cost but rather a decision about investing in reliability and peace of mind.

(Photo credit: Lumafield)