Largan Chairman Questions Micro LED Use in AI Data Center Optical Interconnects
nashnova research
Largan Precision chairman Lin En-ping publicly questioned whether Micro LED can work for data-center optical interconnects, pushing the laser-vs-Micro-LED debate into the open — the outcome will shape how the next generation of AI compute infrastructure moves data with light.
Why did Lin throw cold water?
At an October 8 investor briefing, Lin said Micro LED may require a large number of light-emitting elements, driving up both power consumption and physical footprint.
His core doubt: whether the approach can meet AI data centers' transmission-efficiency requirements — he was explicitly reserved.
This means → As head of one of the world's top optical-component makers, Lin's skepticism is not casual commentary — it puts a question mark over Micro LED's commercial prospects in this space.
Laser vs Micro LED — what is the actual argument?
The industry frames the two paths as "fast and narrow" vs "slow and wide": laser uses few sources at high per-channel speed; Micro LED spreads data across hundreds of parallel optical lanes.
The laser problem: per-channel speed gains are approaching physical limits, and the resulting power and heat pressure keeps rising.
In plain terms = Laser is a highway being widened to ever-higher speed limits — but past a certain point the road overheats and the noise is unbearable. Micro LED opens hundreds of slower lanes instead; total throughput may match, with less heat.
How should the energy numbers be read?
Industry sources estimate the laser scheme discussed consumes roughly 4–5 picojoules per bit (pJ/bit); research literature suggests Micro LED could drop below 1 pJ/bit.
A critical caveat: the Micro LED figure remains a development target, not yet achieved in a commercial product, and the two estimates may not be directly comparable.
This means → On paper, Micro LED's energy advantage looks compelling — but "looks good on paper" and "ready to ship" are very different things. The number is a promise, not a proof.
Where are the technical bottlenecks?
Optical coupling — getting light into a fiber — is a major challenge: Micro LED emits at wide angles, unlike laser's naturally collimated beam, so extra optical-path design is needed.
Taiwan's PlayNitride and Brillink are jointly developing a solution that treats the Micro LED array's output as a 2-D image fed into a fiber bundle, easing alignment precision; a metalens — an ultra-thin flat lens — can further improve coupling efficiency.
But sources concede the biggest obstacle is not any single technology — it is the absence of an industry ecosystem, especially the packaging development and chip-design validation needed for co-packaged optics (CPO, mounting the optical module right next to the chip), which could take years.
Why is MediaTek's AOC approach seen as a shortcut?
Active optical cables (AOC — cables that use light, not copper, to carry data) are seen as Micro LED's fastest path to market. MediaTek and Microsoft Research announced in March 2026 a joint AOC project using Micro LED as the light source.
The key advantage: the design keeps existing electrical interfaces intact, swapping only the cable's internal copper for Micro LED transmitters and fiber — no changes to GPU board-level packaging. This means → validation cycles are far shorter than CPO; deployment can begin before the full ecosystem is built.
Sources note that MediaTek's Micro LED partner is UK startup Porotech, which has a strategic alliance with Foxconn.
What is the real test?
The commercialization roadmap reads: start with AOC, then extend toward CPO, and ultimately aim for scale deployment in AI data centers.
This reflects a larger reality: laser technology is also evolving fast, and the window for Micro LED is not wide.
Put simply = This is not a pure academic question of "whose technology is better" — it is whether Micro LED's ecosystem can reach production readiness before laser closes the door. Time, not specs, is the real opponent.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。