or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung withdraws countersuit against Apple, consolidates component business
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung withdraws countersuit against Apple, consolidates component business

post #1 of 75
Thread Starter 
Samsung is dropping a patent infringement suit against Apple in the U.S in order to "streamline" their legal battle, even as the company has announced plans to fold its struggling display business into its chipmaking operations.

Countersuit dropped

A spokesman for the South Korea-based electronics giant told Bloomberg that the decision to withdraw the suit from a U.S. federal court in San Jose was meant "to streamline the legal proceedings."

Samsung had accused Apple of violating patents "related to fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability,efficiency, and quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products."

Nam made it clear that the action wasn't a sign that the company was giving up its fight against Apple. Samsung will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property, he said. As recommended by a judge, the company will fold its complaint into a counter-claim in the suit Apple filed against it at the same court in April.

The dispute between Apple and Samsung heated up this week, with both sides moving to increase the pressure on each other. Apple sought to accelerate the case by filing for a preliminary injunction on four of Samsung's products on Friday, while Samsung submitted a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission requesting an import ban of Apple's devices.

Samsung also amended its defense against Apple's suit by asserting that its products are merely competing with Apple's, calling the iPhone maker's suit "efforts to avoid such competition." Meanwhile, Apple has strengthened the language in its original complaint, calling Samsung "even bolder" than other competitors in "slavishly" imitating the iPhone and iPad.



Samsung component operations

Faced with the possibility of a second consecutive quarter of losses from its display component business, Samsung has announced plans to combine its component-manufacturing operations, The Wall Street Journal reports. The company's semiconductor and display businesses account for 44 percent of revenue and 70 percent of its profits.

Samsung said in a statement that the merge "is aimed at enhancing cooperation and generating synergyin technology development, production, procurement and client management." Kwon Oh-hyun, the company's president of its semiconductor operation, will lead the new combined business, with the company's LCD head now serving as an assistant to the CEO.

The company had originally split the semiconductor and display businesses in 2004 during a boom in LCD sales and larger flat screens required technology that diverged from semiconductor operations. However, LCD profits have contracted in recent years, weakening the business.

While the move is largely seen as a financial decision to smooth over the display unit's struggles with the chip operations, the report also speculates that the restructuring could be a preliminary move in spinning off the company's component-manufacturing operations. At issue is the fact that clients of Samsung's component businesses compete with the company's other divisions, which make a wide range of products, including cellphones, TVs, and computers.

Apple's complicated relationship with Samsung serves as a strong example of that fact. Even as the companies are fierce competitors in the smartphone and tablet markets, the iPhone maker is expected to become Samsung's largest component client this year with estimated purchases of $7.8 billion, up from $5.7 billion in orders in 2010.

Recent rumors have suggested that Apple may look to reduce some of its dependence on Samsung's manufacturing operations by moving production of its next-generation "A6" chip away from the company. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company will reportedly step in as Apple's new chipmaking partner in 2012.

Apple COO Tim Cook said during a quarterly earnings call in April that Samsung remains a "valuable partner" in supplying component devices, but the company's mobile communication division had crossed the line in copying the iPhone and iPad. "After trying for some time to work out the issue, we decided we needed to rely on the courts," he said.
post #2 of 75
Ah, "syngery," the corporate code word for layoffs.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 75
Bring out all the mouths that know nothing and explain this latest move which is clearly designed as a poor attempt at insulating themselves from legal actions.
post #4 of 75
Let me guess: Samsung is not withdrawing their countersuit against Apple, they are "competing" with Apple.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #5 of 75
Samsung's $8 Billion plus business with Apple with be $0. I stated that the moment the original patent suit was filed and it's turning out to reveal itself.

Apple's investment in Brazil for electronics parts will increase with 3rd parties.

Apple's assembly will expand considerably more in South America and reduce in East Asia.

LG and other third parties who make equivalent chips from Samsung will see increased business, including Micron.
post #6 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Apple's assembly will expand considerably more in South America and reduce in East Asia.

Yes perhaps to the first, but no to the second. You have to appreciate that Apple is accelerating manufacturing at a pace that is literally without precedent. Apple won't be reducing assembly in asia anytime soon. Most likely the Brazilian assembly will be mostly limited to serving the South American consumer market, supply chains for using it to serve say Europe, would be needlessly longer and more complex.
post #7 of 75
Samsungs custom chip business is like 80 to 85% Apple already. I would think this would lower chip costs to Apple. It is obvious Apple needs are great enough to support a full scale manufacturing operation.

Still I don't think Apple is ready to part ways with Samsung Semiconductor yet. If anything they need a second manufacture just to keep up with demand. A diverse supplier base is a very good thing.
post #8 of 75
Why the heck did they put out multiple countersues in, not one but also multiple cities in the first place. More like trying to hide the fact that they're wrong by being the loudest, that's why.
post #9 of 75
In keeping with Samsung's advertising tagline "The Wonder of Samsung", the airwaves are being saturated with aggressive Galaxy Tab commercials aimed at the iPad with "better" this and "better" that.
Samsung is either very confident of winning this lawsuit or they are being suicidal. "That's the Wonder of Samsung"
post #10 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Still I don't think Apple is ready to part ways with Samsung Semiconductor yet. If anything they need a second manufacture just to keep up with demand. A diverse supplier base is a very good thing.

I think it will mostly depend on processes. If TSMC can deliver 28nm in volume before Samsung then they could win the bulk of the A6. If Intel were serious about being interested in Apple's foundry work they could conceivably offer compelling price/performance for the A7.

But yeh, short of that Apple won't completely abandon Samsung, though that doesn't stop them from exerting pressure.
post #11 of 75
They are dropping 1 of the 10 claims of patent infringement in the US based on the recommendation of the courts to streamline its claims to be more effective.

The patent lawsuits in Korea, Japan and Germany are still in effect.

Samsung is not backing down people.

Quote:
Samsung originally filed a separate countersuit about two weeks after Apple filed its complaint with the same district court. Yesterday Samsung filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of that separate lawsuit because the judge had suggested that Samsung convert it into counterclaims against Apple's complaint, for the sake of a more efficient process. It's also in Samsung's interest to do so: this way Apple's claims and Samsung's counterclaims will be adjudicated at the same time.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...st-apples.html


This brings up an interesting scenario. If the court decides that both of the allegations from either parties claims are correct, would that be mutual annihilation? In other words, would both of the companies products be pulled from the shelves on the market?

If that becomes the case, wouldn't Apple take the bigger hit than Samsung? Apple's main source of revenue is from iPod, iPhone and iPad. Where as Samsung's main source of revenues come from its component business. The deal between Apple and Samsung about component supply has already been established through an up front payment by Apple so that wouldnt hurt Samsung one bit. However, it would hurt Apple quite a lot since they wont be able to sell any of their products to the consumer.

Plus, Samsung's mobile handset business also consists of the "dumb" phones, you know "regular" cellphones ( yeah they do exist). So their mobile division will still be chugging along even after their smartphone department (Android specifically as they have 2 other OS's in their company, even possibly a third) is on a court ordered halt.

This is the reason why companies try to diversify their revenue sources as much as possible for fear of business declining (either through competition or by the courts).

Something to think about I guess.....

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #12 of 75
Looks like Samsung no longer wants to piss off their biggest customer.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #13 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This brings up an interesting scenario. If the court decides that both of the allegations from either parties claims are correct, would that be mutual annihilation? In other words, would both of the companies products be pulled from the shelves on the market?

Most of these cases take a lot of timesometimes years. Appeals will also happen and sales will continue in the meantime. Replacement products are probably already on the drawing board. I'll bet some scam artists are getting ready to tell customers that buying a Samsung is the same as buying an Apple and that both are one and the same.
post #14 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Let me guess: Samsung is not withdrawing their countersuit against Apple, they are "competing" with Apple.

It's all designed to make Samsung's legal battles "quite smooth", just like their sell-through of Galaxy Tabs...
post #15 of 75
On the component and brands side, I don't understand why Samsung is struggling. They make arguably some of the best displays in the world for the price points. And samsung supplies displays for so many other brands in all shapes and sizes, from LED-backlit to LCD or AMOLED to whatever.

I'm honestly confused. But I guess it's just business and trying to manage such a corporate behemoth. This is probably only a small part of the picture, Samsung as a whole is a massive operation once you take into account all their non-tech industries as well.

But if anyone can clarify the issue, that would be appreciated.
post #16 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

I think it will mostly depend on processes. If TSMC can deliver 28nm in volume before Samsung then they could win the bulk of the A6. If Intel were serious about being interested in Apple's foundry work they could conceivably offer compelling price/performance for the A7.

But yeh, short of that Apple won't completely abandon Samsung, though that doesn't stop them from exerting pressure.

GlobalFoundries is certified for 28nm.
post #17 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

On the component and brands side, I don't understand why Samsung is struggling. They make arguably some of the best displays in the world for the price points. And samsung supplies displays for so many other brands in all shapes and sizes, from LED-backlit to LCD or AMOLED to whatever.

I'm honestly confused. But I guess it's just business and trying to manage such a corporate behemoth. This is probably only a small part of the picture, Samsung as a whole is a massive operation once you take into account all their non-tech industries as well.

But if anyone can clarify the issue, that would be appreciated.

The panels are mid-tier for 24". They aren't NEC or HP LP2475w quality panels. They don't even stand in the same room as EIZO [most don't], but their Monitor frames [enclosures] are weak, structurally cheap and that glossy black look. Truly cheap.

The iPhone and iPad are convincing people that yes you do get higher quality from Apple. This trickles over to their iMacs, Mac Pros, Macbooks, mac mini, airport units, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc.

Most people after they walk into an Apple store and walk over to a Best Buy laugh and walk around laughing even more at how cheap the stuff is over at Best Buy that isn't Apple designed.
post #18 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

On the component and brands side, I don't understand why Samsung is struggling. They make arguably some of the best displays in the world for the price points. And samsung supplies displays for so many other brands in all shapes and sizes, from LED-backlit to LCD or AMOLED to whatever.

I'm honestly confused. But I guess it's just business and trying to manage such a corporate behemoth. This is probably only a small part of the picture, Samsung as a whole is a massive operation once you take into account all their non-tech industries as well.

But if anyone can clarify the issue, that would be appreciated.

They're putting their amoled screens in their products at a loss. A big loss apparantly. That's why Apple sticks with lcd.
post #19 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This brings up an interesting scenario. If the court decides that both of the allegations from either parties claims are correct, would that be mutual annihilation? In other words, would both of the companies products be pulled from the shelves on the market?

In principle yes, but in practice that is extraordinarily unlikely, first off remember that the patents that are in play here are very very different. Apple is hitting Samsung primarily with design patents, which means that they're extremely simple. Infringement can be decided by literally looking at the outside of the devices, and invalidating the patents for obviousness or prior art is difficult due to their extreme specificity.

Apple is including a utility patent in the package of 4, but as I've said before I think that's a strategic decision where they're hoping to strengthen that patent by forcing Samsung to license it along with paying damages on the other 3 - ie. Apple doesn't need that patent to win at the ITC.

Samsung's patents are all utility patents where it is far harder to decide if infringement is occuring or if the patent is even valid. This is the same sort of territory S3 are and Nokia were playing on, and we didn't see any injunctions granted immediately in those cases. Nokia particularly had a stronger case but we still saw their suit bounce up and down as patents were removed, appealed, etc.

So in practical terms it's likely that if both Apple and Samsung did win their respective suits Apple would win their's first by a considerable margin and would thus be able to force Samsung to the table - because Samsung would know that Apple could drag out the other lawsuit for months or even years as it fought to invalidate each of Samsung's patents.

Samsung's 4th patent seems particularly weak, since it stipulates that the infringing device have a keypad - which the iPhone clearly does not. The 5th patent stipulates a pointer used on the touchscreen. The first patent is a CDMA patent and even assuming it's valid Apple will argue that they're covered by their supplier, Qualcomm, which has a cross license agreement with Samsung. That kind of thing is enough to render a patents relevance in question, and the ITC aren't going to issue this kind of summary judgement when there is still ambiguity.

Quote:
Plus, Samsung's mobile handset business also consists of the "dumb" phones, you know "regular" cellphones ( yeah they do exist). So their mobile division will still be chugging along even after their smartphone department (Android specifically as they have 2 other OS's in their company, even possibly a third) is on a court ordered halt.

They don't make any real money on dumbphones, margins there are razor thin, handset makers are effectively in that market just to avoid ceding market share. Bada isn't successful in the US, though it has users in developing nations, WP7 isn't successful anywhere, neither is WebOS. Samsung are dependent on Android - if they lost supply their users would just switch to Moto, HTC and yes iPhone.

If there was a disruption to Apple's supply for a few weeks I suspect most Apple users would just wait, because Apple has such tremendous brand loyalty. Longer than that could cause Apple issues though.

But as I've already pointed out, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Samsung's case would be decided as fast as Apple's.
post #20 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

GlobalFoundries is certified for 28nm.

Globalfoundries is not focused on lower power applications as I understand it.
post #21 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

Why the heck did they put out multiple countersues in, not one but also multiple cities in the first place. More like trying to hide the fact that they're wrong by being the loudest, that's why.

My thoughts exactly.
"OH BUGGER! They've found us out! Quick, distract them with the megaphones!"

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #22 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

[...] This is the reason why companies try to diversify their revenue sources as much as possible for fear of business declining (either through competition or by the courts). [...]

This is the reason why Apple tries to diversify their component suppliers as much as possible. So they can dump the ones who do stupid things. As in leak product information (like ATI did back in 2000) or by attempting to undermine Apple's businesses.

Samsung is playing Russian Roulette, Korean-style. Apple isn't Samsung's only source of revenue. But Apple is a major customer. And I suspect a major reason for folding the LCD division into the semiconductor division is to attempt to hide the LCD division's poor performance.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #23 of 75
There is little chance this will happen. Apple hired Tim Cook to get itself out of manufacturing. Because of accounting rules, Apple would see its earnings drop if it owned the factory because chips on hand would get accounted against earnings. I doubt it would risk that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Samsungs custom chip business is like 80 to 85% Apple already. I would think this would lower chip costs to Apple. It is obvious Apple needs are great enough to support a full scale manufacturing operation.

Still I don't think Apple is ready to part ways with Samsung Semiconductor yet. If anything they need a second manufacture just to keep up with demand. A diverse supplier base is a very good thing.
post #24 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

This is the reason why Apple tries to diversify their component suppliers as much as possible. So they can dump the ones who do stupid things. As in leak product information (like ATI did back in 2000) or by attempting to undermine Apple's businesses.

Samsung is playing Russian Roulette, Korean-style. Apple isn't Samsung's only source of revenue. But Apple is a major customer. And I suspect a major reason for folding the LCD division into the semiconductor division is to attempt to hide the LCD division's poor performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

My thoughts exactly.
"OH BUGGER! They've found us out! Quick, distract them with the megaphones!"

I like the phrase "grasping at straws". Seems quite apt for Samsung at this stage.
post #25 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

There is little chance this will happen. Apple hired Tim Cook to get itself out of manufacturing. Because of accounting rules, Apple would see its earnings drop if it owned the factory because chips on hand would get accounted against earnings. I doubt it would risk that.

Right, I'd also add that Apple's chip consumption in mobile actually isn't big enough to support it owning it's own production facilities. Yes it uses a big proportion of Samsung's foundry business but Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business. A lot of the investment in one part of Samsung Semiconductors carries across to the other. So while Apple could easily use the output of a Fab, it couldn't support the R&D expenses needed to stay at the cutting edge of Fab development, and it wouldn't have any use for the old Fabs once it moved to new processes.

It works far far better for Apple to partner with a firm like TSMC.
post #26 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business.

Samsung working on its own stuff, such as 3GS? Damn if that's not a smoking gun against Samsung in the patent infringement fight. This will be entered into evidence. Lucy Koh is not going rule favorably for Samsung with this new information.
post #27 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The panels are mid-tier for 24". They aren't NEC or HP LP2475w quality panels. They don't even stand in the same room as EIZO [most don't], but their Monitor frames [enclosures] are weak, structurally cheap and that glossy black look. Truly cheap.

The iPhone and iPad are convincing people that yes you do get higher quality from Apple. This trickles over to their iMacs, Mac Pros, Macbooks, mac mini, airport units, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc.

Most people after they walk into an Apple store and walk over to a Best Buy laugh and walk around laughing even more at how cheap the stuff is over at Best Buy that isn't Apple designed.

sure, sure. LG made displays in best buy are 'cheap' but when lg makes them for iphone, macbook then they superior. don't confuse the housing with the panel. samsung makes some very good panels as well.just because apple is now litigating doesn't mean you have to hate all samsung products. stop being a mindless drone.
samsung is coming out with some very good products to compete with apple. only a complete idiot would think they were apple products but they are very competitive and closely designed to fit in that 'copenhagen' niche that apple thinks it came up with.
post #28 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Samsung working on its own stuff, such as 3GS? Damn if that's not a smoking gun against Samsung in the patent infringement fight. This will be entered into evidence. Lucy Koh is not going rule favorably for Samsung with this new information.

Ok - I get that you're trying to be funny and sarcastic, but I'm not actually getting what your joke is.
post #29 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

But as I've already pointed out, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Samsung's case would be decided as fast as Apple's.

What you fail to understand is, historically, ITC (trade commission) complaints are examined much quicker than the US courts.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #30 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

What you fail to understand is, historically, ITC (trade commission) complaints are examined much quicker than the US courts.

I fully understand that, but they still can get bounced down to ITC staff, and go through various stages of appeal and counter. Summary judgement such as the one that Apple is requesting is very rare and only done when the case is egregious. Apple is far from sure to get it, Samsung really has no chance.

The S3 case is an ITC complaint, and its been going for months.
post #31 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Ok - I get that you're trying to be funny and sarcastic, but I'm not actually getting what your joke is.

When a joke fails, it could be the audience or it could be the comic who fails to make the humorous connection. Generally, I am of the mindset that a joke tends to find its corresponding audience. Like Apple, I aim for the deep end and am ok when my humor does not win over the whole market ;-)
post #32 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I aim for the deep end and am ok when my humor does not win over the whole market ;-)

Remember, right next to the deep end you have the concrete edge of the pool
post #33 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Ah, "syngery," the corporate code word for layoffs.

Actually, "synergy" means that the whole working together is worth more than the individual parts. In this case, they must be suffering from "anti-synergy".
post #34 of 75
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how Samsung would benefit from the injunction to ban the imports of iPads and iPhones into the U.S. If they succeeded, wouldn't Samsung hurt themselves because they would lose all of their business from the chips in those products? It seems to me that Samsung will lose out either way, if some agreement isn't met before the decision.
post #35 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmikeo View Post

Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how Samsung would benefit from the injunction to ban the imports of iPads and iPhones into the U.S. If they succeeded, wouldn't Samsung hurt themselves because they would lose all of their business from the chips in those products? It seems to me that Samsung will lose out either way, if some agreement isn't met before the decision.

When you walk out of the bank you just robbed with a gun to the head of a comely young hostage and tell the police to put the guns down or the hostage gets it, you don't actually think too much about what would happen if they call your bluff.

You particularly don't think too far ahead if you're doing it with a plastic replica of a gun.
post #36 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Globalfoundries is not focused on lower power applications as I understand it.

AMDs latest Fusion processor actually run cooler than Intels Sandy Bridge. CPU performance still lags a bit but but system wise it is a better processor. Still you are correct Global is not optimized for lowest possible power, instead they try to balance for performance.

I'm actually bullish with respect to AMD right now. For those with an open mind I think you will find many of the Fusion based products to be compelling.
post #37 of 75
I wonder if Apple is really going with the Taiwanese company for future chips. They could easily be phasing Samsung out right now.
post #38 of 75
These days few foundries can support the research to keep them at forefront of technology. So it is a given that Apple would have to join some of the same alliances Samsung is a member of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Right, I'd also add that Apple's chip consumption in mobile actually isn't big enough to support it owning it's own production facilities.

I'm not sure I agree. They already employ almost all of Samsungs foundry capability. That demand is growing rapidly. That is why I'm not surprised at all that they are looking at TMSC as they need a second source to keep up with blooming demand.
Quote:
Yes it uses a big proportion of Samsung's foundry business but Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business.

True they produce much but it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison here.
Quote:
A lot of the investment in one part of Samsung Semiconductors carries across to the other. So while Apple could easily use the output of a Fab, it couldn't support the R&D expenses needed to stay at the cutting edge of Fab development, and it wouldn't have any use for the old Fabs once it moved to new processes.

No fab, except for maybe Intel, has the capability to support R&D for the next nodes. Apple would have to join one alliance or another just like Samsung has to.

As for old fabs you might have a point but even here Apple has options. They can place older chios into things like AppleTV, Airport(s) and the like. Plus they could turn around and manufacture other parts of their handhelds. Lastly the could just sell old chips on the open market or go the foundry way.
Quote:
It works far far better for Apple to partner with a firm like TSMC.

Possibly. However it isn't impossible for a valid case to be made with regards to building your own foundry. It depends upon just how much control Apple wants over their future. Two years ago people would gave questioned the wisdom of Apple designing their own SoC. Today people cant wait for the next "A" chip to come out.

In the end though it would likely come down to this, can Apple make the parts significantly cheaper themselves. As volumes increase I think they have to constantly review that question. It certainly would have been stupid 5 years ago but for the future I'm not to sure.
post #39 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

AMDs latest Fusion processor actually run cooler than Intels Sandy Bridge. CPU performance still lags a bit but but system wise it is a better processor. Still you are correct Global is not optimized for lowest possible power, instead they try to balance for performance.

I'm actually bullish with respect to AMD right now. For those with an open mind I think you will find many of the Fusion based products to be compelling.

You're right I should have said Ultra Low power, but you knew what I meant. Apple might actually be able to use the threat of moving the macbook business to AMD to gain access to Intel's proccesses for manufacturing the A7 - god that would be sweet. Unlikely though alas.

AMD is a great firm, without them and their Athlon line Intel would have continued beating the dead horse that was Pentium and would never have produced a decent offering. Unfortunately for AMD Intel woke up and has stayed on the ball since. I think AMDs heterogenous computing ideas are interesting, but I'm not sure they're really enough to get businesses demanding AMD machines over Intel. Last I checked they only gave really great performance with single precision operations so I stopped looking at them.
post #40 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmovie View Post

In keeping with Samsung's advertising tagline "The Wonder of Samsung", the airwaves are being saturated with aggressive Galaxy Tab commercials aimed at the iPad with "better" this and "better" that.
Samsung is either very confident of winning this lawsuit or they are being suicidal. "That's the Wonder of Samsung"

Samsung actually made me sick of hearing "Hey Soul Sister" on TV.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung withdraws countersuit against Apple, consolidates component business