No, I think the original EOL specification was truthful. What likely happened is that a major customer canceled an order that was the basis for extrapolating such a product lifetime. Unlike other companies, organizations like Samsung and LG live for large contracts in order to be able to justify spinning up assembly lines and build inventory. In other words, there are organizations that exist to supply the industrial markets who will commit to having a stable supply for years because that's the nature of the markets they serve.

Once the key customer cancelled the order they had no way to manufacture these products for the many small companies who were feeding off the edges. During that time I met the CEO of another company who had a multi-million-dollar government contract that was impacted by the same parts we were promised. He was about to be sued by the US government for violating his contract due to Samsung's premature EOL. It is likely that Samsung destroyed dozens of companies when this happened.

BTW, I was dealing the Samsung America's Vice President at the time. In other words, the top guy in the US. The promise came from him and various division top management people. So, yea, it was one of those "you can take it to the bank" promises.

In many ways this was a case of ethics and honor. Having made promises to multiple small to medium companies they should have delivered product at a loss and provided a reasonable runway for everyone to migrate designs. Hardware isn't like software, you can't turn on a dime, even if you want to. Realistically speaking, you need a two year run before new designs. Among other things, your customers don't like it very much if they buy an expensive product and you obsolete it six months later. And then there's the case of having to provide a reasonable EOL for your own products as well as parts, service and support. It can get complicated and messy very quickly.