I've already expressed a potential reason why everyone is losing the display game to Nanosys-- It's tough to chase a moving target. To some degree it is also likely that some bet on changes to the regulatory environment that has yet to arrive and maybe never will.
The problem in pointing at cost all the time is that it is the ideological starting point based on lots of assumptions. As I have said before, unless you know what percentage of the final cost of the QD's is represented by the raw materials, it is difficult to understand the cost equation.
The capex is brought up a lot. In the case of Apple and Nanoco, the capital has already been spent. (And spent by Apple, not Nanoco.) If it were a cost issue that Nanosys or QMC could fix, Apple would probably have just switched QD suppliers and not swapped out technologies. Maybe that will happen down the road. If not, why? Probably because the cost of the QD's wasn't the problem.
Lastly, as soon as Nanosys publicized their low prices earlier this year, it broke all the models we have used here for years. It is possible they saw advantages to the Amazon model and Nanosys chose to play the low margin game to hold onto their share of market lead; making the display market less attractive to their competitors. Nanoco is not directly pursuing the display business, they are working through partners. One of those partners, Merck, is working on next gen display technologies that don't exist yet. Dupont could walk away from pursuing their neighbor and customer Samsung, but they don't appear to be giving up. Heck, their capital has also already been spent. At this point they could look at the business through the lens of incremental economics and the profitable conversion of raw materials. Or, they are not worried about their costs and have confidence in a longer term vision.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
