or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Foxconn may buy more Sharp shares, fueling Apple television rumors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Foxconn may buy more Sharp shares, fueling Apple television rumors

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Foxconn is said to be in talks to buy more shares of display panel maker Sharp, once again prompting speculation that their alliance could play a key role in Apple's rumored television set.

Foxconn Chairman Terry Gou revealed at his company's annual meeting on Monday that they are in talks to buy more shares of Sharp after a recent steep fall in share price, according to Reuters. The report noted that an alliance with Sharp "could open the way for (Foxconn) to push for orders for Apple's much-anticipated Apple TV," referring to a rumored full-fledged television set from Apple.

Foxconn previously purchased a 10 percent stake in Sharp in March, worth $808 million, in an effort to help boost Sharp's struggling LCD business. The partnership is intended to help create demand for products from Sharp's state-of-the-art LCD factory that opened in Sakai, Japan, in 2009.

News of the Foxconn-Sharp deal immediately prompted speculation that both companies were hoping to enter into Apple's supply chain for the company's anticipated television set. Some suggested that Sharp's Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide (IGZO) panels would be a good match for an Apple television.

Foxconn is Apple's primary manufacturing partner, responsible for assembling devices like the iPhone, iPad and Macs. And Sharp is already a major display supplier for Apple, including Retina displays for the new iPad.

Television


Foxconn Chairman Gou said at his company's annual meeting that the partnership with Sharp is good for his company, as Sharp's Sakai plant features technology beyond rival LCD maker Samsung.

"I'm proud to say the cooperation with Sharp will let us beat Samsung in terms of clearness —?high resolution," Gou was quoted as saying.

He also said that the Sakai plant has an "exclusive agreement with Corning" for large-panel displays. Corning makes scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass that Apple uses in products like the iPhone and iPad.
post #2 of 22
407
post #3 of 22
So it appears that in the near future Apple and Sharp, not Samsung, will dominate the markets (and profits) for the 5 screens people interact with daily:

Work Screen - iMac, Pro & Air lines
Home Screen - AppleTV
Consume Screen - iPad
Phone screen - iPhone
Car Screen - Siri

It's the Home Screen that offers so much promise for growth.
post #4 of 22

The MBP with retina display screens, who makes them?  I think Apple wants to get rid of samsung on its supply chain, so this may be a move to find suplliers of retina displays screens.

 

ifixit tear down the MBP, but didnt mention anything about the screen.

post #5 of 22

Two questions:

 

Since Foxconn makes devices for just about every electronics company in existence, how does this point towards Apple?

 

If it were for Apple, why wouldn't Apple just go ahead and buy the Sharp shares, so they could both influence and profit off of the Foxcon deal?

post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

The MBP with retina display screens, who makes them?  I think Apple wants to get rid of samsung on its supply chain, so this may be a move to find suplliers of retina displays screens.

ifixit tear down the MBP, but didnt mention anything about the screen.
The display manufacturer is one thing I didn't check when i was at the Apple Store. Not that it's easy to check; you have to grab a vendor ID and then do some research and get lucky. But at least with 6 RMBPs on display I could at least see if all of them were from the vendor or not.

I did notice the SSD cards were all Samsung. I suspect other components are as well. Regardless of what is happening with Samsung's handset division Apple will be tied to Samsung for at least several years as they are making some of the best components and at quantities Apple needs.

I also noticed that while the read/write speeds of the RMBP was impressive the boot time was not. It's about 80% slower than my 2010 13" MBP with an Intel X25 G2 80GB SSD. Comparative machines all had 8GB RAM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Since Foxconn makes devices for just about every electronics company in existence, how does this point towards Apple?
No other CE company can pull in eyeballs the way Apple can.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #7 of 22

Weird... no Dr. House.....

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #8 of 22

There's several ways to look at this.    Foxconn's investment in Sharp may be because Foxconn itself cannot (or does not want to) build screens.   Remember that Foxconn is more of an assembler than they are a manufacturer.   Panel manufacturing requires over a $ billion of investment to set up a plant.      Foxconn may want to insure that they have a supplier.    Or, it may portend that Foxconn is seeking to eventually take over Sharp.     Frankly, I'm surprised the Japanese government would permit these investments.

 

The reason why it's Foxconn and not Apple itself is that Apple is smart enough not to tie itself to any one supplier or manufacturing process.      And manufacturing is a very low margin business (partially caused by companies like Apple who demand low pricing.)  

 

Back in November, this was reported by IDG:

 

 

Quote:

Panasonic said Tuesday it will sell one of its main domestic TV panel factories to a new joint venture focused on producing smaller screens, as Japan's big-name manufacturers continue to seek relief from deep losses in their display businesses.

The move comes as part of a broader restructuring plan for Panasonic's overall television business, which like its peers' is deeply in the red. The company said last month it would scale back its manufacturing in an attempt to become profitable by next fiscal year. After the sale, which is to be finalized in April of 2012, it will have one domestic plant remaining.

Japan Display, the new venture that will acquire the factory, will be comprised of the small display subsidiaries of Hitachi, Sony and Toshiba, backed by a US$2.6 billion investment from a government-funded investment firm, Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ). The companies said Tuesday they had finalized plans to launch the new company in Spring of next year, as earlier announced.

Panasonic said it will sell its LCD TV factory located in Chiba, east of Tokyo to Japan Display for an undisclosed sum. INCJ said the new venture will build a new production line for small displays at the factory, it said Tuesday.

 

post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

Two questions:

 

Since Foxconn makes devices for just about every electronics company in existence, how does this point towards Apple?

 

If it were for Apple, why wouldn't Apple just go ahead and buy the Sharp shares, so they could both influence and profit off of the Foxcon deal?

Apple doesn't usually buy shares of other companies unless they plan to buy them all. On the other hand they are known to pay for materials or facility construction costs up front to secure priority assembly line time.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #10 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I also noticed that while the read/write speeds of the RMBP was impressive the boot time was not. It's about 80% slower than my 2010 13" MBP with an Intel X25 G2 80GB SSD. Comparative machines all had 8GB RAM.
No other CE company can pull in eyeballs the way Apple can.

I too went to the Apple store to check them out. One that I saw rebooted actually beach balled for about a minute. Perhaps it was defective as the other one booted fine. I played around with Adobe CS for awhile and figured that if you scale a page about 150% with the screen set to "Best Retina" (what ever the hell that is.) the page is about the right size. The setting for more room on screen is completely unusable in any way as the text for entire OS and all applications are illegibly tiny. The setting for larger text is just too big. So Best Retina is pretty much the only usable setting, which scales things to about the same size the previous version MBP but the text is nice and sharp. It doesn't really seem to do much for the pictures in the browser since is is artificially scaling them so they are essentially just using 4 device pixels to display 1 image pixel, at least that is my impression.

 

Retina seems to be mostly about improving text and application interface elements, although I'm sure high res photography would look spectacular. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #11 of 22

Apple is walking a fine line here.  I don't think that they actually want to be in the display business, they are much better off keeping their options open.  However, they obviously have a major competitor in Samsung who does have an advantage in that they make many of their own parts.  The compromise seems to be to select key partners and pump in money (directly or indirectly) to make sure they can be competitive (i.e. they can provide competitive products).  This way they can always switch to another supplier as new technologies arise (and display technology seems to change every year) but still have tight control (and allegiance).

post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Weird... no Dr. House.....

I was going to mention that they just pasted a screenshot on top of that part of the image, but now that I look at it, I see what a bad job of perspective they've done with that, and it's sort of compelling me to remake it myself…

It's an M. C. Escher television…
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I too went to the Apple store to check them out. One that I saw rebooted actually beach balled for about a minute. Perhaps it was defective as the other one booted fine. I played around with Adobe CS for awhile and figured that if you scale a page about 150% with the screen set to "Best Retina" (what ever the hell that is.) the page is about the right size. The setting for more room on screen is completely unusable in any way as the text for entire OS and all applications are illegibly tiny.
I actually forgot to test the various display settings. :D I was mostly looking for things that I knew wouldn't be addressed by the reviews. I like pretty much right next to an Apple Store so I might take a stroll down there today to check the various display modes.
Quote:
The setting for larger text is just too big. So Best Retina is pretty much the only usable setting, which scales things to about the same size the previous version MBP but the text is nice and sharp. It doesn't really seem to do much for the pictures in the browser since is is artificially scaling them so they are essentially just using 4 device pixels to display 1 image pixel, at least that is my impression.

On all machines I checked the SSD vendors, if it could play 4K (a resolution that exceeds the new display) videos from YouTube, and something else.

Retina seems to be mostly about improving text and application interface elements, although I'm sure high res photography would look spectacular. 
That seems to be a given and it carries over from the iPad and iPhone before it. Text will look crisp and clear but bitmapped images will just take up 4x the number of pixels so they'll look a little worse for the same size until that is resolved. Websites will probably be the last holdouts since most devices on the net will not be Retina quality for a very, very long time... and it's costs money and time all around to increase the image quality.

Did you check out apps that have been altered for the Retina Display? Apps that have more than better text renderings but updated bitmaps? I'll check out iPhoto next time. I think they load them up with pictures.

Do you think there is more work to be done to get the other 4 display settings to be viable options for users or do you think Best Retina is going to be the only feasible choice?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #14 of 22

at what viewing distance can a 55" full HD tv be considered Retina?

or should i start a crazy rumor that the Apple TV will be 2160x3840 QFHD?
 

post #15 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

He also said that the Sakai plant has an "exclusive agreement with Corning" for large-panel displays. Corning makes scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass that Apple uses in products like the iPhone and iPad.

 

Betcha the first large-panel display produced by Sharp-Foxconn-Corning-Apple is an updated, possibly Retina-resolution, Thunderbolt Display.  Just to get the technology rolling.  The LCD panel in the current model is made by LG.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #16 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

at what viewing distance can a 55" full HD tv be considered Retina?
or should i start a crazy rumor that the Apple TV will be 2160x3840 QFHD?

The equation for 20/20 vision is: 3438 * (1/x) = y, where, in this case, x is the number of pixels per inch and y is the minimum distance away from your eyes it has to be placed. Note that x and y can be interchanged in the formula depending on what value is sought.

You can use this site to get the PPI of any known size and resolution display...


In conclusion, if you have a 55" 1080p 16:9 HDTV you have a PPI of 40.05 so the equation and result are: 3438 * (1/ 40.05) = 85.84" ÷ 12 = 7.15', 'which means you need to sit just over 7 feet away for the pixels to become indistinguishable.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


...Text will look crisp and clear but bitmapped images will just take up 4x the number of pixels so they'll look a little worse for the same size until that is resolved. Websites will probably be the last holdouts since most devices on the net will not be Retina quality for a very, very long time... and it's costs money and time all around to increase the image quality.
[...]
Do you think there is more work to be done to get the other 4 display settings to be viable options for users or do you think Best Retina is going to be the only feasible choice?

I believe what is most needed is a way for web servers to identify the new Retina Macs and detect which screen mode they are using to dynamically deliver either standard png files or high res versions that are scaled. I'm not sure of the mechanics yet as I would need to own one of the new MBPs to do testing in the studio to see what the machine is actually sending in the request headers and if it is sufficiently identifiable in order to tailor a web page specifically for Retina displays. Of course there will probably be a 13 inch Retina on the horizon soon which will be yet another configuration. A lot of extra work for the web developer if indeed there is a way improve the user experience for visitors when they are surfing with a retina browser.

 

The reasons that you don't want to just provide high res versions that are scaled for regular browsers as well as Retina browsers are: 1) Should not send the extra bytes if unnecessary & 2) because scaled graphics, even when scaled smaller look worse than graphics that are rendered at 100%. I know that last part seems counterintuitive when compared to printed graphic characteristics but that is just the way it is with typical browsers for some reason. Perhaps the new Safari has remedied that issue now that it is retina aware. Still a lot of unknowns at this point.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I believe what is most needed is a way for web servers to identify the new Retina Macs and detect which screen mode they are using to dynamically deliver either standard png files or high res versions that are scaled. I'm not sure of the mechanics yet as I would need to own one of the new MBPs to do testing in the studio to see what the machine is actually sending in the request headers and if it is sufficiently identifiable in order to tailor a web page specifically for Retina displays. Of course there will probably be a 13 inch Retina on the horizon soon which will be yet another configuration. A lot of extra work for the web developer if indeed there is a way improve the user experience for visitors when they are surfing with a retina browser.

The reasons that you don't want to just provide high res versions that are scaled for regular browsers as well as Retina browsers are: 1) Should not send the extra bytes if unnecessary & 2) because scaled graphics, even when scaled smaller look worse than graphics that are rendered at 100%. I know that last part seems counterintuitive when compared to printed graphic characteristics but that is just the way it is with typical browsers for some reason. Perhaps the new Safari has remedied that issue now that it is retina aware. Still a lot of unknowns at this point.

I'm not a web developer (or any developer) but Appple's current solution for the iPad (3) seems like a poor hack than a real solution. It's my understanding that Apple will first download the standard image and then uses JS to call for Retina-quality images if applicable. That doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me. Could it be so the user can have some image in place before it replaces it with the hi-res image that takes longer to load? Could all that be just to keep up the appearance of a faster download?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #19 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I'm not a web developer (or any developer) but Appple's current solution for the iPad (3) seems like a poor hack than a real solution. It's my understanding that Apple will first download the standard image and then uses JS to call for Retina-quality images if applicable. That doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me. Could it be so the user can have some image in place before it replaces it with the hi-res image that takes longer to load? Could all that be just to keep up the appearance of a faster download?

There are just so many variables. Retina on an iPhone is not the same as Retina on a 15" MBP or even an iPad. In each case a different graphic would required. Besides I don't know of anyone who is programming like that. Perhaps Apple is but it is hard to tell without being able to see the source code for iPad pages. To answer your previous question which I forgot to do, I think "Best Retina" will be the default because the other resolutions are not that great in my opinion.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #20 of 22
I haven't had a TV in 5 years, and I don't miss it.
Is TV going down in favor of iPad? Or am I just a tiny minority here?
post #21 of 22

I'm not an expert on stocks but it seems like grey area to use inside information about Apple's new products to buy Sharp shares.

Andrew
Reply
Andrew
Reply
post #22 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

I haven't had a TV in 5 years, and I don't miss it.
Is TV going down in favor of iPad? Or am I just a tiny minority here?

You're probably a tiny minority, but I'm with you on not using a TV for any content. Been six years here without a TV. 

 

For me, a TV seems like a total time-well that people pour their life down into. 

 

On topic: I am in favor of Apple pulling away from Samsung as a component source. Apple's their biggest customer of some components and, as such, is subsidizing the production of similar or same components for Samsung-branded competitive products. Besides touch/display screens, Samsung is a huge provider of SSD memory. Apple acquisition of the Israeli company looks to me as a way of differentiating Apple SSD memory from others. It may lead to independence from Samsung, but that's less clear.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Foxconn may buy more Sharp shares, fueling Apple television rumors