Foxconn's Terry Guo says he lobbied Apple to choose TSMC over Samsung for 'A9'

Posted:
in iPhone edited April 2015
According to one of Apple's closest partners, the company's choice to award production contracts for its forthcoming "A9" chip to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. -- rather than single-sourcing parts from Samsung --?was the result of a concerted lobbying effort from fellow Taiwanese firms.




Foxconn boss Terry Guo said he pushed Apple to choose TSMC because Taiwanese companies must stick together against the "Korean Wave," according to UDN. The report was first noted by GforGames.

While the exact fabrication arrangement for the A9 is unknown, TSMC is thought to have won as much as 30 percent of the orders. Splitting A9 production between TSMC and Samsung is said to have been a "last-minute decision" on Apple's part.

As the CEO of Foxconn, Guo is one of Apple's closest allies and likely holds significant sway with Apple executives. Foxconn is responsible for the manufacturing and assembly of the lion's share of Apple products, helping Apple's operations team manage the company's staggering growth.

Samsung, meanwhile, maintains a somewhat testy relationship with Apple. The companies compete fiercely in smartphones and tablets, and while Samsung's foundry unit operates independently from its consumer electronics business, that animosity is believed to have soured both relationships.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    Again, no matter what Ming Chi says, you can not make the same SOC on two difference processes. Apple will choose one or the other, not both.
  • Reply 2 of 33
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,597member
    I can't believe that the author of this piece wrote, with a straight face, "...Samsung's foundry unit operates independently from its consumer electronics business..." In these Korean style vertically integrated conglomerates there is no such thing as "operating independently" when it comes to the sharing of information across divisions, and sharing the same anti-competitive and immoral culture.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,309member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Again, no matter what Ming Chi says, you can not make the same SOC on two difference processes. Apple will choose one or the other, not both.

    It wouldn't be necessary to have the same SOC. There are at least 4 different products that could take variations; iPad Air, iPad Mini, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6+.

     

    Apple is in a position to afford to do two different processes if they wish, and risk reduction would be one of the reasons that I believe that both TSMC and Samsung/GF might be involved in A9 production. But, all rumors at this point.

  • Reply 4 of 33
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,092member

    Court papers have proven that Samsung does in fact cross lines and Samsung publicly stating it will shield its subsidiaries from other divisions as a result proved they were doing it.  Samsung has zero cred.



    Not sure what to make of the TSMC quote about it pushing Apple to choose them.  Apple doesn't get "pushed" by anyone.  It does the pushing.  Sounds more like them doing a self-patting on the back.

  • Reply 5 of 33
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    The production split decision might have been last minute, but designing the A9 for TSMC's 16FF would have been in process for many months, just in case Apple needed/wanted to use TSMC alongside/insteadof Samsung.

    You can't just take a chip designed for one process and use that design on a different process. If Apple hasn't dual-designed the A9 for both processes, then only one process will be used.

    As for the paranoid worriers about Samsung - Samsung would not gain a lot, if anything, from seeing Apple silicon being made in their fabs - they might get an idea of how many cores/GPUs Apple is including on their next generation chip, but that's fat use when it takes a year to take a chip from conception to implementation.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,309member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post



    The production split decision might have been last minute, but designing the A9 for TSMC's 16FF would have been in process for many months, just in case Apple needed/wanted to use TSMC alongside/insteadof Samsung.



    You can't just take a chip designed for one process and use that design on a different process. If Apple hasn't dual-designed the A9 for both processes, then only one process will be used.



    As for the paranoid worriers about Samsung - Samsung would not gain a lot, if anything, from seeing Apple silicon being made in their fabs - they might get an idea of how many cores/GPUs Apple is including on their next generation chip, but that's fat use when it takes a year to take a chip from conception to implementation.

    I agree. I actually believe that both had tapeouts prior to any production decision, and when you think about the volumes over two years of production, you might be looking at 300 million A9's, so a split makes sense from the start.

  • Reply 7 of 33
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,462member
    In my opinion Apple should've invested in TSMC instead of Samsung so that TSMC can improve their manufacturing throughput and Apple can have two strong manufacturers competing for their contract in case one (Samsung) should fall through.

    At the moment, Apple doesn't seem to have many options outside Samsung.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,949member
    Apple has more money than Croesus. They can buy forests, create dozens of server and solar farms, but cannot fab their own silicon. It can't be for lack of money or brains. Would rather forego my dividends than see Apple held hostage by the vicissitudes of this industry.
  • Reply 9 of 33

    I don't believe what Terry Guo says (the CEO of Foxconn, not Ming Chi the analyst) and the original source says that it was overheard during a private event (political fund raising?)

     

    Terry Guo is known to say many things to advance his own/Foxconn's agenda, so take it with a grain of salt.

  • Reply 10 of 33
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,258member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post



    In my opinion Apple should've invested in TSMC instead of Samsung so that TSMC can improve their manufacturing throughput and Apple can have two strong manufacturers competing for their contract in case one (Samsung) should fall through.



    At the moment, Apple doesn't seem to have many options outside Samsung.



    I seem to recall a report/rumor that Apple tried to make such an investment, but TSMC rebuffed it, saying that they had the capital necessary for making the necessary investments. 

     

    It's hard to know whether that was a mistake on TSMC's part or not. It really depends on the amount of money involved and what kinds of strings Apple attaches to that money. 

  • Reply 11 of 33
    krreagankrreagan Posts: 218member
    Samsung made the first 64bit A-series processor (iPhone 5S) and they still only have a half baked 64bit processor in their own phones (a reference design) two years later. I doubt anything they learned from making the 64 bit A-series processors would be able to help them without a complete redesign of the Arm reference designs as Apple id.

    The A-series designs are so far ahead of the Arm reference designs that by the time Samsung could reverse engineered it and put something together Apple would be 2-3 generations beyond that... They just can't compete in this market so they stick with what all the other Droid's are doing.
  • Reply 12 of 33
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Apple has more money than Croesus. They can buy forests, create dozens of server and solar farms, but cannot fab their own silicon. It can't be for lack of money or brains. Would rather forego my dividends than see Apple held hostage by the vicissitudes of this industry.

    Only if Apple also sold to competitors would that remotely make sense.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Again, no matter what Ming Chi says, you can not make the same SOC on two difference processes. Apple will choose one or the other, not both.

     

    Sure you can. Called Common Platform. Just tell TSMC to be unofficially Common Platform compliant. Samsung already copied TSMC's 14 nm process, why can't TSMC?

  • Reply 14 of 33
    tekmtekm Posts: 14member
    I'm sure Tim Cook sees these reports and just laughs out loud.

    The simple fact is that Apple needs all the capacity they can get. They need SoCs for iPhones past/present/future, iPad Air/Air2/Minis/upcoming iPad Pro, the Apple Watch, and the upcoming new AppleTV refresh.... and who knows what else is coming.
  • Reply 15 of 33
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Only if Apple also sold to competitors would that remotely make sense.

    Hey why not?

    Have Apple manufacture 2-gen old Apple chips for the competition. Droid manufacturers would kill for them.

    The process/leftover chips would be cheap to manufacture. Keep the bottom feeders 2 years behind and bump that %94 mobile profit closer to %100 or more :D
  • Reply 16 of 33
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

     



    I seem to recall a report/rumor that Apple tried to make such an investment, but TSMC rebuffed it, saying that they had the capital necessary for making the necessary investments. 

     

    It's hard to know whether that was a mistake on TSMC's part or not. It really depends on the amount of money involved and what kinds of strings Apple attaches to that money. 


     

    I recall that rumor too.  It's laughable that Apple was trying to get TSMC to dedicate their foundries for meager $1B -- TSMC's expected to spend $10B in CapEx for their 16nm ramp-up this year, while Samsung is spending $15B.   AMD and Qualcomm are reportedly ditching TSMC for Samsung 14nm processing as well, so Apple's offer wouldn't have made any difference. 

     

    No wonder Apple is so profitable (so little CapEx or R&D relatively speaking). 

  • Reply 17 of 33
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by konqerror View Post

     

     

    Sure you can. Called Common Platform. Just tell TSMC to be unofficially Common Platform compliant. Samsung already copied TSMC's 14 nm process, why can't TSMC?


     

    @konqerror: eh?  Common Platform is long gone.  TSMC's processing is based on Intel's whereas CP from IBM's, but with IBM gone or now part of GF, Samsung is leading the pack (or GF).   TSMC never had 14nm processing -- they are still trying to get 16+nm up and running later this year -- and Samsung copied TSMCM's 14nm process?  Umm, which planet are you from?

  • Reply 18 of 33

    For crying out loud, TSMC won the A9 manufacturing because Taiwanese suppliers lobbied Apple? Really? What was rumored, but amazingly went unpublished by AI because it made Samsung look bad, was that 16nm manufacturing process had become solid enough to produce the A9 and that TSMC had won.

     

    Ming Kuo? Ming Kuo? Can you here me? Has TSMC been the winner of manufacturing the A9 using its reliable 16nm manufacturing process all along instead of the still unreliable Samsung 14nm manufacturing process? If so, can you "break news" now instead of "breaking news" in a few months?

     

     

    The Samsung rumors were tiresome, but these excuse rumors of TSMC winning are just boring.

  • Reply 19 of 33
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

     

     

    @konqerror: eh?  Common Platform is long gone.  TSMC's processing is based on Intel's whereas CP from IBM's, but with IBM gone or now part of GF, Samsung is leading the pack (or GF).   TSMC never had 14nm processing -- they are still trying to get 16+nm up and running later this year -- and Samsung copied TSMCM's 14nm process?  Umm, which planet are you from?




    TSMC has sued Samsung for theft. Go figure.

  • Reply 20 of 33
    tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

     



    TSMC has sued Samsung for theft. Go figure.


     

    @leavingthebigG :  TSMC never sued Samsung.  TSMC sued a former TSMC employee, Liang Mong-song, who left the company almost 6 years ago for his breaching of noncompete agreement.   If you believe that TSMC had a working 14nm processing back 2009, sure, Samsung did steal TSMC's tech.  I'm, however, inclined to agree with ExtremeTech's Joel Hruska's take on the charges:

     

    Quote:

    It may be tempting to pin Samsung’s rise to power on the actions of a single man, as CommonWealth magazine does, but I think this narrative is fundamentally inaccurate. Modern semiconductor manufacturing requires enormous capital input, teams of hundreds of engineers, and committing to a multi-year roadmap of iterative product improvement. No one person can singlehandedly drive this process for a sustained period of time. Whether Samsung’s 14nm lead turns into a sustained success or a momentary blip before TSMC retakes the pole position will depend not just on Liang, but on the entire ecosystem Samsung has built around its position and its ability to execute the contracts it takes now that its built the process node.


     

    and, being that CommonWealth is a Taiwanese trade mag, I'm not too surprised by their spin on this.  I suspect that it's all part of the campaign orchestrated by TSMC, Foxconn, and other competing Taiwanese interests. 

Sign In or Register to comment.