# The Future of Cree as a Company



## computerpro3 (Feb 8, 2010)

Now that I've really started to get into this flashlight hobby, reading these forums has given me an absolutely incredible wealth of information to digest. Looking at the historical timeline of the development of the LED, the technological improvements in just two or three years have been nothing short of incredible. Three years ago, 200 Lumens OTF was a huge deal. Now, my EDC keychain light achieves that (Mini AA on 14500), and we have 2200 lumen SST-90 monster lights coming out.

Now, while there are several companies out there producing emitters, it seems to me that two that have the most resources, R&D presence, and market presence are Cree and Phillips. Looking at the market now, there are several barriers to the LED taking over incandescent in home lighting. However, the same could be said about the flashlight market five years ago! Brightness, efficiency, and color temperature will all be solved - it's just a matter of time before the technology gets there.

When it does, I believe it puts Cree in a very interesting position. Phillips is already set - they are a major player in home lighting, and would seem better positioned to break into that market. They are a trusted name, and the distribution channels are already in place. In addition to this, I have not seen a level of success from other major companies (like General Electric) that is anywhere close to Cree or Phillips. It would seem to me that this makes Cree an incredibly strategic asset for a larger company to buy out (like GE). It would make sense for Cree to sell out as they face significant barriers to market penetration at the consumer level (your average Joe is going to buy a GE lightbulb instead of a Cree if they're both on the shelves).

Of course, this is all conjecture. I have no inside information and I'm still new to this industry! There could be gross factual errors in my post, but I enjoy thinking about such things so I'll ask anyway:

What do you think will happen to Cree in the next 5-10 years?


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Feb 8, 2010)

[Quote/] In addition to this, I have not seen a level of success from other major companies (like General Electric) that is anywhere close to Cree or Phillips. It would seem to me that this makes Cree an incredibly strategic asset for a larger company to buy out (like GE). It would make sense for Cree to sell out as they face significant barriers to market penetration at the consumer level (your average Joe is going to buy a GE lightbulb instead of a Cree if they're both on the shelves).[/QUOTE]

I disagree. I actually avoid buying GE products now and would take a Cree product over GE product any day. IMHO, GE has stopped innovating and has started getting into politics and propaganda to force their products on consumers. They own NBC and have the contracts for the "smart grid". I'll stop there before I start a rant about GE. Philips tried to get the incandescent lightbulb banned in California so they could force consumers to buy their florescent and l.e.d. bulbs. I appreciate companies that try to save consumers money while preserving our natural resources, but I despise any company or individual that tries to take my choices away. Competition exists to bring down costs for the consumer. If the incandescent bulb is to be made obsolete and not used anymore, I want it to be because something better has been made that is as cheap, more energy efficient, and longer lasting. Getting rid of regular bulbs before that happens only serves to keep costs up and deny us superior products that would have been made. Since Cree is making superior products and not using politics to force their products on consumers, whether we like them or not, I would prefer to see Cree buy out GE or Philips after Cree strong enough to do so. The way things are going, I think this is a more likely scenario.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 8, 2010)

I was very happy I bought CREE stock about a year ago, but then sold it around Jan 20th when the overall market went down.

When you look at their chart since starting in 2/1993 you can see their spike in 1999-2000, and again 1/2009-???

I think they are in for a lot more competition since Asian countries have no qualms on copying everything that others invent, and producing it with slave labor. The market is being flooded with LED's now.

I think CREE will hold their own, but it's not as clear that they are going to do dramatically better than other LED companies. I have more of a concern regarding the overall stock market, and am hard pressed to buy into any stocks in the forseeable future. I believe the DOW is going down to 6,000 before a bull market returns.

I think the best news on the GE front is they are finally selling NBC/Universal to Comcast. Perhaps they will get back to what made them great.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 8, 2010)

In my opinion Cree being bought out by GE or Philips would be a major disastor. The reason Cree innovates is precisely because it is a small, relatively new company. Large, established companies generally have a corporate culture which stifles innovation. Generally whenever employees might want to do something "creative", they end up being told that's not the way we do it around here, we've been doing xxxxx for decades and it works fine. And then even if you might be lucky enough to have a supervisor who gives you some latitude, you'll still be stuck with whatever procedures the company has in place. Need a part? No, you don't just go in the stock room and take it, or order it if it's not in stock. Instead, you need to file a requistion which has to go through several levels of approval. If it's a new part, then it needs to have an in-house part number assigned, and likely can only be ordered if one of the company's approved vendors has it. And of course you have to account for every part you use. Yes, some large companies are really this bad, including one I worked for. Try to innovate when you need to go through a drawn-out procedure for every resistor you might need.

Besides the inertia a large company has, GE and Philips both make a significant amount of the income in their lighting department from relatively short-lived incandescent lamps. What do you think would happen if they bought out Cree? They would likely stifle any innovation, continually say LEDs will be ready "someday", just so they can continue to sell incandescent bulbs. There already is a parallel to that. The automakers bought up a lot of electric car and battery patents and small companies just to stifle development. They also pushed fuel cells ( a technological dead end, at least for motor vehicles ) as the answer at some indeterminant future time "once the bugs were worked out". Of course, fuel cells have been in development since the 1960s, and are not much closer to being deployed in motor vehicles than they were then ( not to mention the huge cost of building a brand new fueling infrastructure ). So in the end the automakers go what they wanted-they continued to sell ICE cars, and made a killing in the spare parts business. Only now are they seeing EVs as the future, largely because they are faced with the reality of smaller EV-only companies they couldn't buy out ( i.e. private firms ) showing the general public the benefits.

Sorry about the OT rant, but I feel Cree being bought out by GE or Philips or any other similar large company would be a HUGE conflict of interest. There is no good reason for it. Cree is doing just fine as it is. It just needs to continue to expand its share of the LED market, and brand itself if it wishes to move to selling residential LED lighting. Based on Cree's approach, most likely their residential lighting will consist of LED fixtures rather than screw-base bulbs. IMO the residential screw-base bulb market is headed towards the basement as far as price/quality goes, same as happened with CFL. Cree likely wants no part of that as low-cost, low-quality products would tarnish its reputation. In the end, Cree remaining independent will force larger companies to get serious about LED lighting. As more of Cree's fixtures appear in commercial establishments, the general public will become increasingly aware of their benefits. That in turn will get GE or Philips to innovate more with LEDs. This will hopefully include selling complete fixtures as well as screw-base LED retrofits.

So please Cree, don't sell out! The old adage if it ain't broke don't fix it comes to mind.


----------



## SemiMan (Feb 9, 2010)

jtr1962 said:


> In my opinion Cree being bought out by GE or Philips would be a major disastor. The reason Cree innovates is precisely because it is a small, relatively new company. Large, established companies generally have a corporate culture which stifles innovation. Generally whenever employees might want to do something "creative", they end up being told that's not the way we do it around here, we've been doing xxxxx for decades and it works fine. And then even if you might be lucky enough to have a supervisor who gives you some latitude, you'll still be stuck with whatever procedures the company has in place. Need a part? No, you don't just go in the stock room and take it, or order it if it's not in stock. Instead, you need to file a requistion which has to go through several levels of approval. If it's a new part, then it needs to have an in-house part number assigned, and likely can only be ordered if one of the company's approved vendors has it. And of course you have to account for every part you use. Yes, some large companies are really this bad, including one I worked for. Try to innovate when you need to go through a drawn-out procedure for every resistor you might need.
> 
> Besides the inertia a large company has, GE and Philips both make a significant amount of the income in their lighting department from relatively short-lived incandescent lamps. What do you think would happen if they bought out Cree? They would likely stifle any innovation, continually say LEDs will be ready "someday", just so they can continue to sell incandescent bulbs. There already is a parallel to that. The automakers bought up a lot of electric car and battery patents and small companies just to stifle development. They also pushed fuel cells ( a technological dead end, at least for motor vehicles ) as the answer at some indeterminant future time "once the bugs were worked out". Of course, fuel cells have been in development since the 1960s, and are not much closer to being deployed in motor vehicles than they were then ( not to mention the huge cost of building a brand new fueling infrastructure ). So in the end the automakers go what they wanted-they continued to sell ICE cars, and made a killing in the spare parts business. Only now are they seeing EVs as the future, largely because they are faced with the reality of smaller EV-only companies they couldn't buy out ( i.e. private firms ) showing the general public the benefits.
> 
> ...



- First high powered LED : Philip and HP (Lumileds --- big company)
- First conformal coated white for color consistency (Lumileds while part of HP and Philips)
- First camera flash LED: hmmm...that would be Lumileds
- First small SMT high powered led --- that would be Rebel: hmm... that would be Lumileds as Philips too.....
- First back thinned die ... hmmm that would be OSRAM ... you know big old non innovating Osram/Sylvania (It was the licensing of this tech that gave Cree the big lumen output jump a few years ago)
- First long life at high temp ... oops, that would again be Philips Lumileds
- Most $/lumens from a major LED vendor: .. pretty much Nichia right now
- Most consistent white shipping in volume ... Nichia

Where Cree is excelling is in the most efficient LEDs and obviously that is very important. However, they are not remotely unique in bringing innovation to the industry. There have been a lot of milestones and innovations for which Cree has been a follower. Other "LARGE" companies have been very innovative.

"Battery Patents" .... oh please. If you read this forum at all you should have a good understanding of the state of battery technology. For all the pundits that would like to blame everyone for the lack of electric vehicles, the reality is, that battery technology simply not good enough ... no matter what patents you may use. Batteries currently only have about 1/3 to 1/5 the required energy density in order to have wide spread penetration into vehicle usage. It's only been the last several years where available battery types have met even basic energy density and power density, and recharge cycle requirements for limited plug-in usage in a typical sized vehicle .... in typical climates!

For my last three cars, the engines basically lasted the life of the vehicle with limited maintenance so I am not sure why car companies would want to stifle a combination of electric motors, power electronics, control electronics, and batteries (that would need replacing) that are likely to cost more than the current power trains.

I suggest you also bring yourself up to date on fuel cell development. One of the significant goals of fuel-cell development is to have fuel-cell systems that run on liquid fuels, i.e. methanol, as opposed to compressed gases (i.e. hydrogen). Given that we do not have viable battery technologies for 400+ miles ranges, quick refills (nor the grid for it either), why is an alternate technology, to quote you "A CHOICE" a bad thing to be exploring? As opposed to 30-40% efficient combustion, we may have 70-85% efficient fuel cells using a similar fueling infrastructure. For the record, batteries have been in development since the 1800's and still are not "ready" for prime time car power.

More to the point, why does a discussion on the long term viability of Cree have to result in a rant about conspiracy theories and a rant against corporations?


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Feb 9, 2010)

Cree recently announced that they have made a neutral tint 208 lumen/watt l.e.d. at 350 mAh. That is the kind of result that can be achieved from a company that invests profits in R&D instead of lobbying to eliminate the competition. I think Cree has the potential to put companies like Philips and GE out of business sometime in the near future.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 9, 2010)

Hooked on Fenix said:


> I think Cree has the potential to put companies like Philips and GE out of business sometime in the near future.



I'll give you 100 to 1 odds that you are wrong, and I'll even let you extend "the near future" as long as 5 years. 

Before you lose your money, you should look closely at Philips & GE product lines, sizes, diversification, and balance sheets. Furthermore, it is more likely than not that CREE will get bought out whether you or they like it or not. Stockholders decide such things, not LED fanboys. :devil:


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 9, 2010)

SemiMan said:


> - First high powered LED : Philip and HP (Lumileds --- big company)
> - First conformal coated white for color consistency (Lumileds while part of HP and Philips)
> - First camera flash LED: hmmm...that would be Lumileds
> - First small SMT high powered led --- that would be Rebel: hmm... that would be Lumileds as Philips too.....
> ...


While all that is true ( except I take issue with the part about Nichia ), where are Philips/Lumileds and Osram now? Their best commercial LEDs are a bit behind Cree in terms of efficiency, not to mention Lumiled's habit of announcing vaporware. Cree doesn't make an announcement about ramp ups in production efficiency until they're just about ready to ship. Moreover, they've been volume shipping 100+ lm/W LEDs for quite some time. Whatever the accomplishments of P/L and Osram in the past ( and I'll admit both were innovators in their day ) they've fallen behind the curve lately.

As for Nichia, maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how their LEDs excel at either $/lumen or consistent shipping in volume. Around here it seems Nichia's latest products are practically unobtanium, or if they are available they cost WAY more than the competition ( see price and availability of Nichia GS LEDs versus the fairly similar Cree 503B, for example ). Granted, you can get older Nichia products somewhat readily, but they don't seem to have any price advantage over anyone elses.



> Where Cree is excelling is in the most efficient LEDs and obviously that is very important. However, they are not remotely unique in bringing innovation to the industry. There have been a lot of milestones and innovations for which Cree has been a follower. Other "LARGE" companies have been very innovative.


Efficiency and lifetime are the KEY parameters in the LED world. Right now LEDs remain a lot more expensive than alternatives. Their big selling point is that they pay for themselves in terms of power saved and/or relampings saved. The only area I think Cree is weak in as far as LED development is their lack of high-CRI offerings. While their regular offerings are plenty good for outdoor and less critical indoor uses, you need better CRI if you hope to penetrate the indoor lighting market.  Cree is innovative in mixing whites and color LEDs in their fixtures to achieve this, but it would be more cost-effective to use high-CRI emitters from the get go.



> I suggest you also bring yourself up to date on fuel cell development. One of the significant goals of fuel-cell development is to have fuel-cell systems that run on liquid fuels, i.e. methanol, as opposed to compressed gases (i.e. hydrogen). Given that we do not have viable battery technologies for 400+ miles ranges, quick refills (nor the grid for it either), why is an alternate technology, to quote you "A CHOICE" a bad thing to be exploring? As opposed to 30-40% efficient combustion, we may have 70-85% efficient fuel cells using a similar fueling infrastructure. For the record, batteries have been in development since the 1800's and still are not "ready" for prime time car power.


First off, that 400 mile range is something ingrained in the heads of consumers by car companies as something they "must" have, as opposed to an actual real need for 99% of the driving people do. This has been bought up umpteen times on these forums. There are plenty of people who own cars who have never _once_ needed to go 400 miles, never mind doing so on any kind of a regular basis where the lack of such range would be an issue. For the kind of real world driving people do, even a 100 mile range, which was available with battery tech in the early 1990s, would cover 99% of trips. For the once or twice a year ( or even less ) you might need to go further, rent an ICE car. And once we realize the "need" for 400 mile range isn't as widespread as it is made out to be, the "need" for quick recharge vanishes as well ( although today's batteries can do that also, provided a suitable recharge station exists ). If fact, here's a great link authored by one of CPF's own regarding the facts as far as battery-powered cars are concerned.

Second, we're currently up to about 300-400 miles range, depending upon who you ask, with today's batteries. They also last the life of the vehicle. While I'm all in favor of the additional choice fuel cells might give, it's looking more and more like batteries ( and possibly supercapacitors - see here ) will exceed their capabilities by the time these fuel cells are ready for the market. Also, fuel cells currently cost more than either batteries or engines. Whether that will always be so I don't know. I don't doubt that fuel cells will fill some niche _eventually_, perhaps in locations far from the grid which have ready access to natural gas or methanol. But a key player in daily transport? If I were a betting person, I'd bet heavily against it ever happening, especially any hydrogen-based fuel cells ( for safety alone, those should be a non-starter ).



> More to the point, why does a discussion on the long term viability of Cree have to result in a rant about conspiracy theories and a rant against corporations?


Prior history ( both personal and collective ) which I thought relevant to the topic. I've seen too many instances in my life of innovators bought out by those seeking to keep the status quo. The auto industry seemed to provide the best example ( and I could go back even further in time with more examples ). OK, you can't keep viable technology under wraps forever as we've seen. LEDs are coming regardless of how the major lighting players feel about them ( and legislation restricting incandescent lamps is pretty much forcing the issue anyway ). But you can hold back adoption for up to several decades if you throw enough money at buying off your potential competition. Of course, one could argue that a company is "future-proofing" themselves by buying up potentially disruptive technology, but IMO there are two sides to that. The second is the desire to leverage their investment in existing technology for as long as possible.

Like I said regarding Cree, it ain't broke, so don't fix it. Cree is a viable LED company as is. It's not pretending to be P/L or Osram or GE, nor should it. It has a few key areas it does very well in and that's it. It could be argued that many smaller specialized companies are better for competition than a few larger generic ones even if you don't buy into what you call "conspiracy theories" ( and most conspiracy theories have a bit of truth in them anyway ). It's the old adage of doing one thing very well as opposed to many things so-so. That IMO is often the weakness of large corporations. They can AFFORD a certain bit of mediocrity whereas a smaller company focused on a few key products can't. Why we as consumers tolerate mediocre products is another question entirely, but one best discussed elsewhere.

End rant ( and I'll refrain from further discussions in these areas if the mods feel it is too off-topic for this thread ).

Now what were we discussing? The long-term future of Cree? My best guess is they'll continue to do what they do for at least the next couple of years. We can probably expect regular ramp-ups in efficiency of shipping product, along with an ever more diverse line of LED fixtures. Longer term they may indeed disappear or get bought up by someone else. I liken the current state in the LED world to what existed in IC manufacturing in the 1960s and 1970s. You had a lot more companies making ICs. In the long term, as the investment for each new process improvement cost more, you ended up with a handful of larger companies. I think eventually in order to cost-effectively manufacture LEDs in the quantities demanded by industry, you'll need to invest substantially. Only a few large companies can afford that ( and Cree isn't currently one of them ). Also, it's entirely possible P/L, Osram, etc. may catch up to Cree in terms of technology, pretty much making them obsolete. I would bet against that happening in the next five years, but after, who knows? 5 years is an eternity in the LED world.


----------



## SemiMan (Feb 9, 2010)

I can argue quite easily that we did not truly have 100 mile range electric cars in the 90s... oh, maybe when they rolled off the lot, and in warm climates ... but in colder weather no, and batteries then certainly did not last the life of the car when actually run to deep discharge which was needed to achieve those ranges. Of course, where weight and COST are no object.... but they are.

Yes, I am well aware of the average drive of the average car owner .... having worked in batteries and auto before. That said, I also do marketing and know that the "average" consumer, you know, the ones that drive volume and drive car designing decisions, are unlikely to buy a car that can only go 100 miles on a charge and then takes hours to recharge. Oh there will always be a few that do, but overall all, not that many. If I have a 25 mile each way commute and I forget to recharge just one night, I am screwed.... that is how the average consumer is going to think. Let's say I decide to take an unplanned trip, a run into the city, etc. ... or crap, now I have to go out and rent a car? How many SUVs, Minivans, etc. are on the road because every once in a while people want the convenience of the features they provide? I am not saying this is right, I am saying this is how it is. 400 miles is not ingrained, but certainly an expectation of at least a few hundred miles is...and realistically, for a reasonable priced car, that can carry four people and some cargo, and works across reasonable climates, we just are not there yet with current technology.

In terms of batteries lasting the true life of a car, LiFePO4, long recharge life NiMh, etc. have really not been mainstream for very long. That 100 miles range is to 80% discharge or so.... but I will be realistic and say that the battery needs to go say 40% discharge, 2000 times at least while maintaining 80% life ... and last 7-10 years. With the exception of what was considered exotic and expensive battery technology, that is a fairly recent development. Of course, I would prefer not to have to pay the price of a typical new car in order to replace those batteries.....

Fuel cells cost more when they are sized to have enough power to run standalone, but a hybrid fuel-cell/battery/supercap system is far more viable. I am not advocating fuel cells, but to dismiss them out of hand with NO knowledge of what advancements may come down the pipe is out of order. Personally I do believe, educated guess, that batteries will be the dominant technology, but I could be proven wrong by just one good invention.

I am well aware of that article that was written..... tons of claims, some I completely agree with, some that are easy to make when no economics or realities are taken into account, some of which are inaccurate.... but it still comes down to, the vast majority of the buying public would not buy what can be sold to them in terms of an EV today .... either because of cost, utility, or range. There are more than enough rich entrepreneurs out there who could build such a car if it was truly possible ... why have they not? Certainly not in any quantities. I do expect to see more movement from areas such as China where the vehicle expectations are lower than in the developed world where we are admittedly more coddled. Unfortunately, places like India do not have the grid infrastructure.

I do consider it a bit hypocritical to be pushing EV but complaining that you can not use your horribly wasteful incandescent bulbs, but I digress.

If you are buying low quantities of Nichia, they are not competitive. However, if you are buying large quantities that is a different story and that is what drives the market. Their newest 1W whites are very cost effective.... think in the $1.00USD range.

If you are looking for tight binning on color on white power LEDs, Nichia has always been the best, especially for warm white. No other supplier has really been supplying large quantities of bin selected whites without major hassles/price increases.

Realistically the Rebel is only a bit behind Cree in terms of shipping efficiencies ... at best one bin and realistically less. The Rebel can also be bought in a guaranteed 100 lumen/watt version. While Cree has more lumens/mA, Rebels have tended to have lower forward voltage. Rebels have less droop w.r.t. temperature and last longer at higher temps. It all comes down to the application. For flashlights the XPG is wonderful, but for general lighting, it is not as easy a choice between XPE an Rebel. Of course if can live with a bit less efficiency and especially for wider angle lighting, Nichia will be your choice ... especially for nice tight warm white bins. Keep in mind Nichia is shipping the most efficient production LED on the market.... albeit a low current one. Last I checked, they still are the biggest LED company.

Semiman


----------



## uk_caver (Feb 9, 2010)

With various manufacturers all improving in efficiency, is that down to licensing each other's technology, or independent inventions of different improvements?

I was wondering how much time is left for innovation in things like efficiency?
When advances start getting close to hard limits, that could mean a more level playing field, with less advantage for a company that was once ahead of the curve to stay that way.

With phosphor-based white LEDs, if the maximum theoretical efficiency is around 80%, once products start getting vaguely close to that, what else is likely to differentiate them for mass market use (apart from price)?
Would anyone actually care that company X had a 260lm/W LED, and company Y a 240lm/W, if company Y's product was meaningfully cheaper?

If it is actually possible to make highly efficient red+green LEDs, maybe the future (or at least, a time ahead of the pack) will go to whichever company gets there first, or to whichever large company buys a smaller company that looks like it might be getting there.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 9, 2010)

SemiMan said:


> I do consider it a bit hypocritical to be pushing EV but complaining that you can not use your horribly wasteful incandescent bulbs, but I digress.


Without taking the thread further off-topic discussing EVs ( there is already a nice long-running thread on CPF Green where that can be done ), I actually wasn't complaining about the ban on incandescent bulbs. It was merely an observation that regardless of whether the major players want LED or not, their hand is being forced by legislation, and the fact that CFLs can't replace incandescents is a number of applications, whereas LED eventually can. And for similar reasons, I feel EVs of some sort ( whether battery or fuel cell or even directly grid-powered from the roadway ) are the future because it will become increasingly unacceptable to pump out auto exhaust in population centers. It's really only a matter of time before larger cities make legislation to that effect. IMO they should have done so decades ago, before the auto even became popular enough to cause the pollution problems it did. But anyway, I'm hardly complaining I can't use incandescent bulbs. Outside of 3 chandeliers which are seldom used ( and will eventually be converted to LED ) I haven't personally used incandescent lamps in this house for about two decades. Fluorescent ( mostly linear and some CFL ) has served me well, and I like the fact that LED gives me yet another choice.



> If you are buying low quantities of Nichia, they are not competitive. However, if you are buying large quantities that is a different story and that is what drives the market. Their newest 1W whites are very cost effective.... think in the $1.00USD range.


I'm well aware that Nichia prefers to sell in large quantities. That doesn't do any good however if you're either an experimenter, or a smaller manufacturer. Nichia could sell large quantities to distributors, who in turn would resell to smaller customers, if they don't want the hassle of doing that themselves. For some reason they seem mostly unwilling to do so. Not so with Cree or P/L or Osram or SSC. Their LEDs are all readily available from common distributors.



> Keep in mind Nichia is shipping the most efficient production LED on the market.... albeit a low current one. Last I checked, they still are the biggest LED company.


Yes, I'm aware of Nichia's size, and also the fact that they essentially invented white LEDs. I'm also aware that their latest and greatest 150+ lm/W LED is pretty much unobtanium unless you're ordering thousands. Well, I did see it from some distributor overseas for something like 1 Euro. This is certainly not competitive to the alternatives such as the XP-G in terms of $/lumen.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 9, 2010)

uk_caver said:


> I was wondering how much time is left for innovation in things like efficiency?
> When advances start getting close to hard limits, that could mean a more level playing field, with less advantage for a company that was once ahead of the curve to stay that way.
> 
> With phosphor-based white LEDs, if the maximum theoretical efficiency is around 80%, once products start getting vaguely close to that, what else is likely to differentiate them for mass market use (apart from price)?
> Would anyone actually care that company X had a 260lm/W LED, and company Y a 240lm/W, if company Y's product was meaningfully cheaper?


That's a great point, and we already have a parallel. Just look at other lighting technlogies. One company's 100 watt incandescent or F32T8 tube is pretty similar to any others in terms of efficiency. What sets one apart from the other, and this is more relevant to fluorescents, might be features like better color rendering, or slightly higher efficiency, or much longer life. For example, most F32T8s have a rated life of 20,000 to 30,000 hours. I know of one company whose tubes have been claimed to last in excess of 70,000 hours. Undoubtedly a big selling point for applications where relamping is difficult or expensive. And there are some fluorescent manufacturers who specialize in ultra-high CRI tubes.

I think we'll eventually see similar things with LED. I'm sure in time, perhaps ten years from now, all the major players will be selling LEDs operating near theoretical limits. They might be able to distinguish themselves in terms of better color rendering, tighter binning, or perhaps longer life at higher currents. If you're an end user of LEDs, it might ultimately come down to deciding between LED A which has gives 232 lm/W with a CRI of 93, or LED B which gives 237 lm/W with a CRI of 91. I feel the differences will eventually be that subtle.



> If it is actually possible to make highly efficient red+green LEDs, maybe the future (or at least, a time ahead of the pack) will go to whichever company gets there first, or to whichever large company buys a smaller company that looks like it might be getting there.


Actually, it's red/green/blue, and you need to add a fourth color to get CRI in excess of about 85. What we really need to make this a reality are more more efficient green, and to a lesser extent, red LEDs. We also will need some type of active control circuitry to color balance the light. The advantages are potential for greater efficiency ( potentially 100% efficiency ), and the ability to have any desired color temperature from the same lamp ( it's just a matter of adding more set points via software ). I don't expect this to happen any time soon. But yes, if someone develops highly efficient reds and greens which are cost effective, they'll have an edge in a hypothetical market where phosphor whites are all pretty close to each, and near maximum possible efficiency. Look for this to happen once phosphor white technology starts to peter out, but probably not any sooner.


----------



## blasterman (Feb 10, 2010)

> the reality is, that battery technology simply not good enough


 
He's right. Hybrid diesel is probably the best way to go. But, you know....we have to keep pumping money into start-ups researching battery technology to keep their stock prices elevated.:thinking:



> Before you lose your money, you should look closely at Philips & GE product lines, sizes, diversification, and balance sheets. Furthermore, it is more likely than not that CREE will get bought out whether you or they like it or not. Stockholders decide such things, not LED fanboys


 

+100. Cree ain't in this so flashlight geeks can blind each other at night. They're in this to make money, and they are clearly setting themselves up for a potential buy-out. Why else dink around with dedicated fixtures? 

Sorry jtr1962. I agree with you in spirit, but at some point Cree is likely going to sell-out to one of the big buy with a big supply chain and a million sales reps pounding the stores.

Also, the constant 'Cree Press Releas' alerts on this site are becoming more and more like 'Train Spotting' every day. Cree could announce a new emitter has 300lpw efficiency and cures cancer and we'd get 50 posts on why they are the smartest compnay on the planet. 

Yet you can buy an XP-G in any color - as long as it's nasty cool white.



> How many SUVs, Minivans, etc. are on the road because every once in a while people want the convenience of the features they provide?


 
You want an honest response? They are on the road because American's think cheap gas is an entitlement and U.S. car companies have been brain washing consumers for decades that your are a sissy if you buy a small car. If gas cost what it does in Europe this would be a non-arguement. Otherwise, I'd rather see smaller cars and more hybrid technology, and otherwise am not a big electric fan because of the battery issue. 




> We can probably expect regular ramp-ups in efficiency of shipping product, along with an ever more diverse line of LED fixtures.


 
As I've said in numerous other threads Cree's biggest asset is they hold the patents to a couple innovative and popular solid state fixtures. It's those specific patents that will make the company viable for a buy-out. I simply don't think their fab technology means a whole lot because it can be reverse engineered in short time. Even the chinese knock-offs I've been buying are up to 90lpw, so Cree has to keep the efficiency target moving.




> If you're an end user of LEDs, it might ultimately come down to deciding between LED A which has gives 232 lm/W with a CRI of 93, or LED B which gives 237 lm/W with a CRI of 91. I feel the differences will eventually be that subtle.


 
Uh, that's a decision based on the guys stuffing the LEDs into retrofit bulbs, not end users. I can also guarantee you that decision is based on how cheap they get the emitters.

I should note that I've spent about $250 on LEDs the past two months and most of that money hasn't been on Cree emitters, but cheaper Rebels and Bridgelux.


----------

