

  (Source: Samsung)



I. Deck 1 -- Finances

Samsung revenue by region




2. General Outlook -- Vice Chairman

Samsung next big thing



Samsung holodisplay



3.  Samsung -- CEO JK Shin Talks Global Business





Samsung watches






4. Mobile Displays & Research Outlook

A neat fact from IMS Research on slide 6:

  • Product replacement schedule/lifetime:
  • Mobile -- 1.8 years
  • Note PC -- 5.0 years
  • TV -- 7.0 years
  • Refrigerator -- 14.0 years
  • Washer -- 15.9 years



Samsung UHD




5. Memory Business





Samsung 6 Gbit


Green memory





R&D roadmap


6. Semiconductor outlook


Samsung analyst



samsung die shrinks


Camera sensor





Samsung 64-bit

Also interesting is Samsung's "Foundry 2.0" slides:


Samsung leadership

Samsung IP licensing


FinFET 14 nm



7. The Future of Displays



Samsung display market share






Samsung strategy



Source: Samsung

Comments     Threshold


RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By retrospooty on 11/7/2013 10:13:44 AM , Rating: 1
"there's nothing happening from your 800x480 on up that actually helps anyone."

We have discussed this in depth before, so I wont get into it again... This is just a friendly reminder to please have your eyes checked because they aren't seeing clearly at the 8-16 inch range where people hold their phones. Not even a little bit clearly.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By Motoman on 11/7/2013 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 3
We have, so *again* I'll remind you that I have had my eyes checked recently. 20/20 - the expected average.

I'll also remind you that I personally have put my money where my mouth is, doing "taste tests" with a "low-res" phone next to a "high-res" phone and asking random people in an office, who aren't phone nerds, which display gives the best picture.

Comparing a Galaxy S Relay (800x480) to either an iPhone 5 (1136x640) or a Galaxy S III (1280x20) - I've done this multiple times - this is what normal people do:

1. If you set an expectation that one screen is higher-quality than the other, people agree with you - even when you do so with the lower-quality screen. For example, I'll point to the Relay and say something like "technically this screen is superior, but I don't think you can tell the difference...can you?" People will tend to prefer whichever device you presented that way. The majority of people will say that the Relay display does indeed look better - even when it's woefully behind the other screens, technically.

2. If you set no expectation, it pretty much boils down to 50/50 - or you'll get a glimmer of marketing recognition "oh, the Apple one is supposed to be better right?" or "Oh, this is a Samsung Galaxy? Those are better, right?"

Once again, you're fooling yourself, and I've proven it in the real world with tests that you yourself can repeat if you want to learn the truth. There are vanishingly few people, statistically speaking, who give a rat's a$s about high-res screens on a smartphone. The fact that they tend to collect here in higher proportions on a tech website doesn't change that natural fact.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By retrospooty on 11/7/2013 11:09:06 AM , Rating: 1
You may have 20/20 vision, indicating that ou see what the average person sees at 20 feet, but you have a problem at 1/1 my friend. Sorry you cant admit it. If the random people you tested with in your office cant see it then they have an issue too. Sorry you cant see it in order to see it. It's like explaining the colors purple, blue and red to a color blind person. It just doesn't make sense to him.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By Motoman on 11/7/2013 11:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to continue to believe that you're right while the vast majority of people are wrong, that's your thing. Trying to convince you otherwise is like, well, like trying to describe colors to a blind person.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By retrospooty on 11/7/2013 11:37:55 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... OK man, I am not going to argue with you on this any more, if you cant see it, you cant see it and me typing words on a web page isn't going to help your vision. You and I are totally cool as far as I am concerned. You are wrong on that and that is that, but we are cool. +1

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By ven1ger on 11/7/2013 1:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Sample testing for just what people think at first glance may not be sufficient in determining if one res is better than another over use for a lengthy period of time. If you read a screen for a minute at a lower res vs a higher res screen for the same minute, it may not be significant for the user. But, if you view the lower res screen over time vs the higher res, the higher res will most likely win over because it will be easier to discern text & pics a lot easier thereby being a lot less strain on the eyes.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By jamescox on 11/8/2013 4:08:28 AM , Rating: 2

This is the real test. Try reading black text on a white back ground for a half hour. Something like the original ipad (132 PPI) is definitely way too low resolution. Also, I find reading text on a small screen phone for extended periods causes me eye strain, even with a high-res device. I used a 4th generation ipod touch for a while (326 PPI), and this works okay for pages optimized for mobile. For pages not optimized for mobile, these usually have text way to small, even with zooming in on individual frames. For images or video, you can get away with a much lower resolution without noticing it much. Also, different character sets (such as japanese or chinese characters) do not display well on low dpi screens.

I don't think there is much of a reason to go over 300 or 400 ppi. About the only place it would make any sense is on a >= 10 inch tablet. Manufactures may then want to bring that resolution down to smaller screen devices for consistency though. For Samsung specifically, going 4K may make more sense when using a non-RGB sub-pixel layout.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By jamescox on 11/8/2013 4:16:30 AM , Rating: 2

I meant to say that the only place 4k resolution would make any sense is in the larger tablets.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By Reclaimer77 on 11/8/2013 2:58:23 PM , Rating: 2!

Like I've literally never seen such rubbish.

First off I think you're full if it. You don't go around testing peoples opinions that way. But let's say you do, what is your methodology?

This debate is silly. If you can tell the difference between a Bluray and DVD from several feet away, you can damn sure tell that same difference with a phone right up to your face.

RE: I'd rather pay less and..
By Solandri on 12/2/2013 12:24:08 AM , Rating: 2

What are you displaying in your tests?

I use my tablet (and prior to that, tablet PC) to haul around my sheet music collection (beats a 3 foot stack of music books). When I first got the idea, I tested the different screen resolutions I could buy for this application. The 1024x768 screens were just awful. 1280x800 was marginal. e.g. I couldn't make out the little flags and tails which distinguish an eighth note from a sixteenth note, and I couldn't tell if that was a grace note or dirt on the screen.

The tablet PC I ended up getting was 12.1" and 1400x1050 (144 ppi), which I considered just barely acceptable. The tablet I got is 1920x1280 and 9" (256 ppi), and mostly good enough though I can still see a little room for improvement.

A 4.3" 800x480 phone is 217 ppi, so only slightly better than what I'd consider marginal. 1280x720 at 4.3" (341 ppi) or 5" (294 ppi) is about perfect. I agree the 1920x1080 screens at 5" (441 ppi) are just overkill. The main reason for going to this resolution on a phone IMHO is so you can play back HD movies without having to scale the picture.

So I disagree with you that 800x480 is sufficient on a phone, but agree that 1920x1080 is overkill. If you're just watching movies or playing around with icons, yeah 800x480 is good enough. But it's insufficient if you're viewing something which requires discrimination of detail. You can tell the difference.

This matches with the long-standing rule of thumb for printer resolution. 150 dpi was considered the threshold for "high quality" print, while 300 dpi was considered the the point where your eyes could no longer see the dots when reading the paper at a comfortable distance. The move to 600 and 1200 dpi was more about high quality dithering to allow laser printers (which can only print black or white) to print greyscale, which isn't an issue with LCDs or AMOLED.

