Omdia: Global Automotive Display Panel Shipments Reach 232 Million Units in 2024, Fueled by China's Market Influence
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here:
2024 Automobile Monitor Panel Shipment Share
The strong demand in China's automotive market has been a key driver of this growth. The Chinese government's strong promotion of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) has led to a surge in both domestic sales and exports of Chinese-brand electric vehicles. At the same time, policies prioritizing domestic components have strengthened China's position in the supply chain, further boosting demand for locally produced automotive displays. Additionally, many global automakers have adapted to the market landscape by integrating more localized supply chains, aligning with government policies and competitive market conditions. As a result, Chinese panel manufacturers expanded their market presence, surpassing 53% market share in 2024.
Chinese BOE and Tianma continued to lead the automotive display market, securing the top two positions. BOE held a 17.6% market share, shipping 40.9 million units, with a 16% year-on-year growth, while Tianma followed with a 15.9% share and 36.9 million units, recording the highest growth among the top five at 25% YoY.
AUO ranked third, with a 10.5% market share and 24.4 million units shipped, growing 5% YoY. Japan Display Inc. (JDI) placed fourth, holding an 8.6% market share but experiencing a 13% decline, reflecting structural challenges in maintaining competitiveness. LG Display ranked fifth, capturing a 7.7% share with 17.98 million units shipped, growing 8% YoY.
Beyond the top five, IVO (6.5% market share, up 20%) and Truly (5.3%, up 4%) continued steady growth, while China Star (CSOT) surged 125% YoY, reaching a 5.0% market share. Several other suppliers saw notable declines, reflecting shifting market dynamics and intensifying competition.
Commenting on market movements, Omdia Senior Principal Analyst Stacy Wu said: 'The evolving market landscape has led to the closure of multiple small and mid-sized fabs, as manufacturers struggle to compete and adapt to shifting industry demands. JDI's recent announcement to shut down its Tottori and Mobara facilities reflects the industry's shift toward cost-effective, high-capacity production. Looking ahead, LCD fab capacity for automotive displays will become increasingly concentrated in advanced production lines, particularly G6 LTPS and G8 a-Si/Oxide fabs in China. While this shift enhances production efficiency, it also presents challenges in supply chain diversification as automakers and tier 1 suppliers navigate an increasingly complex global trade environment.'
SOURCE: Omdia
Copyright Business Wire 2025.
PUB: 03/18/2025 06:22 AM/DISC: 03/18/2025 06:22 AM
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
Nvidia CEO says Chinese military unlikely to use its AI chips, Bloomberg says
Nvidia (NVDA) CEO Jensen Huang said the U.S. government does not need to be concerned about its technology being used by the Chinses military, Ian King of Bloomberg reports. Huang said the Chinese military will avoid using U.S. technology due to the risks associated with doing so. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Nvidia CEO to hold media briefing in Beijing this week
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang will hold a media briefing in Beijing on Wednesday, an official from the company said on Sunday, marking his second visit to the country after a trip in April where he stressed the importance of the Chinese market. Since 2022, the U.S. government has imposed restrictions on the export of Nvidia's most advanced chips to China, citing concerns over potential military applications. The U.S. also imposed a ban earlier this year on sales of Nvidia's H20 artificial intelligence chips to the country — which had been Nvidia's most powerful AI chip cleared for Chinese sales. Nvidia CEOI Jenson Huang in Paris last month. Getty Images Huang's latest visit has been closely-watched in both the U.S. and China. A bipartisan pair of U.S. senators on Friday sent a letter to Huang about his China trip, asking him to abstain from meeting with companies that are working with military or intelligence bodies in the People's Republic of China. The senators also asked Huang to refrain from meeting with entities named on the U.S.' restricted export list. China generated $17 billion in revenue for Nvidia in the fiscal year ended Jan. 26, accounting for 13% of the company's total sales, based on its latest annual report. Huang has consistently highlighted China as a critical market for Nvidia's growth. Nvidia's market value topped $4 trillion for the first time last week. AFP via Getty Images Nvidia has faced increased competition from Chinese tech giant Huawei and other makers of graphics processing units — the chips used to train artificial intelligence. But Chinese companies, including its big tech firms, still crave Nvidia chips due to the company's computing platform known as CUDA. Nvidia's market value topped $4 trillion for the first time last week, solidifying the chipmaker's position as Wall Street's central player in a race to dominate AI technology.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- The Hill
Elon Musk is no Ross Perot
The comparisons flood in. Elon Musk launches his 'America Party,' and every pundit reaches for the same tired parallel. Another Ross Perot. Another billionaire maverick. Another third-party earthquake waiting to happen. Wrong. Completely wrong. Musk represents everything Perot opposed. Where Perot stood for fiscal discipline, Musk embodies corporate welfare. Where Perot championed American manufacturing, Musk built his fortune on government funding and Chinese batteries. Where Perot offered genuine outsider credentials, Musk carries the stench of establishment cronyism. The surface similarities deceive. Both men possess massive wealth. Both nurse grudges against sitting presidents. Both promise to shake up the system. The differences run deeper than the Delaware River. Perot emerged from genuine business success. He built Electronic Data Systems from nothing. He created real value, real jobs, real innovation. His wealth came from solving actual problems, not gaming government handouts. Musk built his empire on taxpayer subsidies. Tesla survived on government credits. SpaceX feeds off NASA contracts. His companies consume public money like a Vegas slot machine consumes quarters. He represents the opposite of Perot's self-made independence. The timing exposes another crucial difference. Perot entered politics during America's economic malaise. Recession gripped the nation. Deficits soared. Voters craved fiscal responsibility. His message matched the moment. Musk launches his party during economic recovery. Stock markets reach record highs. Unemployment stays low. His fiscal responsibility message lands like a lead balloon in a helium factory. More importantly, Perot possessed something Musk lacks entirely: credibility on his core issue. When Perot talked about budget deficits, people listened. He had never taken government handouts. He understood business efficiency. He could legitimately claim outsider status. Musk talking about government waste sounds like a meth addict lecturing about sobriety. His companies gorged themselves on federal subsidies for decades. He personally benefited from programs he now claims to oppose. The hypocrisy stinks from orbit. The political landscape has also shifted dramatically since 1992. Perot faced two establishment candidates, the president, George H.W. Bush and his Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. Voters hungered for alternatives. The third-party lane stretched wide and inviting. Today's political map offers no such opening. Trump already occupies the anti-establishment space. He owns the outsider brand, despite being president. Musk cannot out-populist the master populist. The media environment has transformed beyond recognition. In 1992, Perot could command television attention through sheer novelty. Cable news was young. Social media did not exist. A billionaire buying airtime could reach millions of uncommitted voters. Now everyone screams into the digital void. Attention spans shrink by the nanosecond. Musk's X antics already overexpose him. His brand suffers from overexposure, not invisibility. Perot also offered policy substance beneath the theatrics. His deficit charts bored audiences, yet they conveyed serious proposals. He understood complex economic issues. His solutions made mathematical sense, even if they were politically unrealistic. Musk offers conspiracy theories and vanity projects. His policy knowledge barely scratches the surface. He confuses tweeting with governing. He mistakes social media engagement for political support. The coalition mathematics doom Musk from the start. Perot drew votes from both parties roughly equally. His appeal crossed traditional lines. Fiscal conservatives and government skeptics existed in both camps. Musk's potential supporters cluster overwhelmingly on the right. He cannot build a truly bipartisan coalition. Democratic voters despise him. His only hope lies in cannibalizing Republican support. This creates a fatal strategic problem. Every vote Musk gains likely comes from Trump's column. He cannot expand the anti-establishment coalition because he lacks cross-party appeal. He can only divide it. The structural barriers have hardened since Perot's time. Ballot access requirements have increased. Campaign finance laws favor established parties. The debate commission now excludes third parties more effectively. Perot qualified for the presidential debates in 1992. Those appearances legitimized his candidacy. Current rules make such inclusion nearly impossible. Without debate access, third parties wither in obscurity. The fundamental character differences matter most. Perot, for all his quirks, projected competence. He ran a disciplined campaign. He stayed on message. He treated politics seriously. Musk treats everything as a game. He changes positions hourly. He picks fights on social media. He lacks the temperament for sustained political combat. Perot understood American voters. He spoke their language. He shared their concerns. He offered real solutions to real problems. Musk lives in a Silicon Valley bubble. He mistakes X for reality. He confuses online engagement with electoral support. He fundamentally misunderstands the American electorate. The comparison insults Perot's legacy. He may have been eccentric, demanding and difficult, but he changed American politics permanently. He forced both parties to address fiscal responsibility. He proved that third parties could compete. Musk offers nothing comparable — no serious policy agenda, no coherent vision, no sustainable coalition. His proposed new party is just another billionaire's vanity project disguised as political reform. The America Party will follow the same trajectory as Musk's other attention-grabbing schemes — media frenzy, gradual reality, ultimate failure. John Mac Ghlionn is a writer and researcher who explores culture, society and the impact of technology on daily life.
