The global Mini/MicroLED market will grow rapidly, and MLED technology will become an important development direction for the LED direct display industry in the future.
COB and MIP are two popular technologies with different industrial chain structures and technical difficulties. Cost competitiveness is the key to winning or losing in the market. LED direct display companies need to pay attention to technological breakthroughs and supply chain games.
According to Luotu’s prediction, the global Mini/Micro LED (MLED) market will grow at a compound growth rate of more than 50% in the next five years, and the global Mini/Micro LED market will reach US$36 billion in 2028.
Micro LED emerging display technology is accelerating its implementation and will become a must-win position in the LED direct display industry in the next five years.
But what kind of technical weapons should be used to win the battle in the MLED market? COB and MIP are undoubtedly the two most popular directions today. The competition between the two will also determine the future industry structure, especially the industrial chain structure.
MLED is bound to win the future
With the rise of LED direct display applications in indoor scenes, the display pixel pitch of the products required by the market is continuously shrinking. At the same time, the brightness level required by the products is not as high as that of outdoor screens.
This results in the traditional size of LED crystal particles being redundant for small-pitch LED displays in terms of key properties such as brightness.
Especially with the continuous improvement of LED electro-optical efficiency, the waste of material costs caused by this “excess” has become increasingly significant. Moreover, larger-grained LED crystals are not conducive to the design of LED direct display screens with smoother images and higher resolution.
In this context, the MINI/MICRO LED concept was proposed. Its essential meaning is to solve the problem of wafer materials in large quantities and increase the pixel output per unit wafer in the context of meeting brightness requirements – that is, MLED is first of all a “material cost saving” technology, and secondly a “more efficient” technology. “Technology adapted to ultra-small spacing and even wearable or XR display applications.”
For large direct-display LED screens, the biggest competitive advantage of MLED is its stronger “cost competitiveness”. For example, the material consumption of a single pixel for traditional LED particles with a size of 300 microns is dozens of times that of micro LED-level particles. In this regard, industry insiders said, “Better effects may not be needed by every customer, but lower costs are absolutely universal competitiveness.” It is this that determines that the era of MLED dominance will definitely come.
The industry predicts that in the future, LED direct displays with pitches below P3.0 will enter the MLED specification line; among them, the brightness level of micro LED today is enough to support the application of most products with pitches below P2.5. For indoor large-screen scenes and small-pitch LED screens, MLED is the only standard answer in the future.
Competition in the MLED market, two major technologies, COB and MIP, are on the scene
In MLED display applications, COB and MIP technologies were born about 10 years apart. However, since 2023, MIP has formed a tripartite trend with COB.
From the perspective of the underlying technology framework, COB is a chip-scale packaging technology. LED crystals are packaged into cell structures with hundreds or more pixels. The entire surface of the product is covered with film, which has the advantage of durability. However, because more LED crystal particles are processed at one time, the process reliability is required to be higher; after using the overall coating technology, the repairability of individual bad pixels is poor; at the same time, one packaging specification COB corresponds to one display Pixel spacing.
MIP technology prefers independent RGB pixel packaging, or an independent packaging structure with only single-digit RGB pixels. When using independent pixel packaging, one MIP packaging specification can correspond to a variety of terminal screen pixel pitches.
MIP packaging products also require integrated operations on the end product process, that is, surface mount technology. The latter is the “most” extensive and mature process for traditional LED direct display products. MIP performs well in terms of repairability, and the particle consistency selection operation is easier.
If more robust reliability is required, additional GOB coating can be added. However, the total retroperitoneum may be more difficult to repair.
From the perspective of product application, COB and MIP technology itself does not limit its application scope, but cost changes affect the possible breadth of its market. Specifically, because MIP is adapted to the surface mount process, it has better adaptability in the large-pitch market.
Because COB technology does not require surface mounting back-end processes, it has advantages in extreme resolution products that are difficult to achieve with surface mounting processes.
At the same time, after MIP is surface-coated, its robustness and optical performance are no less than those of COB products. Although MIP reduces the difficulty of mass transfer and solves repair problems, the difficulty of the surface mounting process increases significantly when the spacing is below P1.0, especially below P0.5, and the difficulty of “high-precision mass surface mounting” is not the same. Less direct and massive transfer than COB.
That is to say, from the perspective of technical problems, MIP has indeed reduced the accuracy requirements of mass transfer at least by an order of magnitude at the packaging level. However, once ultra-fine pitch terminals are involved, the surface mounting process is not as difficult as the surface mounting equipment currently commonly available. And the assembly line can satisfy.
Overall, MIP is more like splitting a once-completed COB into two main links, and then distributing the difficulty of huge transfers between the two links – a bit like the leverage principle: by consuming more distance, saving money Put in the effort. However, only focusing on the differences at the technical level cannot fully understand the changes in the industrial chain structure brought about by the “two-step” MIP.
COB and MIP are not only different in “packaging technology”
Regarding the essential difference between COB and MIP technologies, in addition to the underlying technology framework, application product structure, and core technical problems, another important difference is the “industrial chain logic.”
At present, there are two main supply solutions for COB screens: the first is that the terminal brand independently masters mass transfer and COB technology. It purchases upstream LED wafers, controls the packaging process itself, and realizes COB packaging, which is a shorter industry chain for the terminal. . This is a common choice among leading companies in the industry. This solution increases the technical content of LED direct display terminal companies and raises industry barriers.
The second is OEM manufacturing by professional COB LED manufacturers. Many ICT or color TV companies have entered the LED direct display market and adopted this model. Professional OEM COB manufacturing lowers the threshold for brands to launch terminals and is also conducive to greater scale in the COB manufacturing end.
However, terminal companies have also lost their technological uniqueness and lacked stronger bargaining power in technical industries.
There is only one supply model for MIP technology solutions. That is, LED wafer serves as the upstream industry link, MIP packaging serves as the midstream industry link, and downstream LED direct display companies manufacture terminal products through the surface mount process. ——It can be seen that the LED direct display industry chain structure under MIP packaging technology is the same as the industry supply pattern before the birth of COB technology.
Overall, the COB technology industry chain has only two major links, wafers and terminals; MIP has three, wafers, packaging and terminals. It is this difference that makes MIP the favorite of packaging companies. At the same time, because its downstream uses traditional surface mount technology, it has won the favor of downstream terminal brands that do not have COB technology.
——”MIP and SMD technologies are of the same origin and are compatible with traditional SMT equipment. While maintaining the original industry chain model, LED display manufacturers save expenditures on heavy asset costs such as a series of equipment”: This is the topic that packaging companies are most willing to mention. .
MIP is a win-win situation between the upstream, midstream and downstream of the traditional division of labor process; COB is wafer + terminal, skipping traditional packaging companies, allowing terminal companies to master more technical links, and raising the threshold of terminal competition for upstream and downstream (without midstream) linkage. Under two different technical solutions, the contradiction in industrial chain selection is very clear.
Cost power still determines the future
In the Micro LED era, from a terminal perspective, the technical problem has always been the huge amount. That is, whether it is COB or MIP, a huge amount of transfer is required. Once the mass transfer technology achieves a major breakthrough, including the breakthrough of “massive mass transfer”, the competitive difference between the two will first fall on the word “cost”.
From the perspective of industrial chain links and technical processes, the COB camp has always emphasized that its “short chain” should have more cost advantages.
In 2023, COB products will also see a price drop of nearly 50%, achieving rapid doubling growth. MIP emphasizes the friendliness of traditional processes and division of labor, especially the “opportunity protection” for second- and third-tier brands to enter the top-resolution pitch indicator product market, and then also emphasizes its own cost advantage. That is to say, MIP plays the “cost card” as soon as it comes up.
Therefore, while the MLED era continues to break through process technology bottlenecks, cost wars and supply chain games will be a big drama between COB and MIP. The difference in cost competitiveness will also be the key to ultimately deciding which of the two takes the initiative.
In this regard, the current predictions of the industry are more inclined to the view of “mutual victory or defeat”. This is also the reason why LED direct display head brands have launched two major technology products at the same time.
COB LED display factory
Shenzhen Chifuyi Technology Co., Ltd. (CHIFE) COB LED display factory focuses on the research, development and production of high-density, high-brightness LED displays. CHIFE factory has a number of technology patents, especially in COB packaging technology, which has significant advantages.
CHIFE is China’s high-end COB LED display screen factory, the world’s leading COB LED display company, and COB LED display customization factory. We provide creative LED displays, outdoor LED displays, indoor LED displays, and rental LED displays. and other products.
Through innovative integrated packaging technology, the factory is able to provide high-stability, high-contrast display products, which are widely used in indoor and outdoor advertising, exhibitions, stage shows and other occasions.
CHIFE factory relies on rich manufacturing experience and advanced technology to provide customers with high-quality LED display solutions.