or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung hopes 'strict internal firewall' will protect Apple parts deals
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung hopes 'strict internal firewall' will protect Apple parts deals - Page 2

post #41 of 82

Apple is already moving its display sourcing to Sharp. I have no doubt Samsung will be cut out of the loop eventually. Hopefully, Apple is getting suppliers to sign up with non-compete clauses. That way, if their new suppliers try to copy them, they'd be violating a contract which should be more clear cut.

post #42 of 82

I've been saying for ages that Apple needs to move production of components from Samsung to other suppliers; the problem is that Samsung truly is a relieable supplier at the volumes that Apple needs. That said, I would like to see them move more production to other vendors and, in particilar, find someone who can manufacture their SOCs which would be a major hit to Samsung. But, even here, I have mixed feelings because Samsung manufactures a good deal of the se SOCs in Texas whereas other suppliers are less likely to have fabs here in the US.

 

I truly believe that the fact the Samsung's LSI division wrote a report specifically on a customer's product (the iPhone) was one of the most damning pieces of evidence. They knew what they were doing was wrong but tried to keep it under the radar by not having the report written by Samsung's mobile division.

post #43 of 82

That's the  beauty of moving the SOCs manufacturing to TSMC or Global Foundries - they don't make finished goods.

post #44 of 82

I think I found a copy of a video surveillance tape from the Samsung plant when they were discussing the various intellectual property held by the various divisions:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcxGFmYyPs 

 
post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

  Can you imagine if Samsung was producing the new IPS screen on the upcoming iPhone5, instead of LG.  If they were producing that part.. I'd bet money that a Galaxy S3i would magically pop on on on Sept 11th, with an IPS screen.

 

Nonsense, Samsung makes AMOLED panels. They've moved on from LCD some time ago for mobile displays; which is why LG has that market cornered. 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #46 of 82

Apple should go to Advanced Micro Systems and get it to fab a custom chip.
 

post #47 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcode View Post

To me, this shows a level of maturity that indicates that level-head prevail when rational conversations are had...  Even between Apple and Samsung.

 

It takes an awfully big person to sue a parent company for a record breaking amount (because they refused to negotiate or discuss reasonable solutions), only to turn around and order a record breaking number of parts from one of their subsidiaries.

 

I, for one, applaud Tim Cooks ability to keep business and emotion in separate corners.

This. Apple is a business, and Samsung will probably continue to have a significant role to play as a component supplier. It's much more likely that, within a few months, both parties will find a way to wrap up the litigation related issues and move on from it.

post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Apple should go to Advanced Micro Systems and get it to fab a custom chip.
 

AMD would f it up like everything else they do... Go with Intel, a pro!

post #49 of 82

So now they are professing to have integrity as an ethical company?

post #50 of 82

Not only is Apple finding new hardware partners, in MHO they will pull back to the US some.

post #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

This. Apple is a business, and Samsung will probably continue to have a significant role to play as a component supplier. It's much more likely that, within a few months, both parties will find a way to wrap up the litigation related issues and move on from it.

 

I wonder if Samsung would want to raise component prices thus offsetting lawsuit losses as well as potential future losses that will come from banning, licensing, and/or getting rid of popular features from their devices.

post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

 

I wonder if Samsung would want to raise component prices thus offsetting lawsuit losses as well as potential future losses that will come from banning, licensing, and/or getting rid of popular features from their devices.

I don't think Apple will suddenly become stupid when it comes to their sourcing practices. Among the many skills they seem to have institutionalized, supply chain management is probably the top one (even higher than product design, in my view). A billion dollars is so significant to Samsung, and most likely the final figure is not going to be a cash transfer but instead covered through credits or discounts on other transactions.

post #53 of 82

I think the calls for Apple to dump Samsung as a supplier are a little premature. 

 

Samsung the Component Supplier is not the same as Samsung the Smartphone Maker. 

post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post

Samsung will lose all of Apple's business one day. The damage is done.

And other potential clients as well I expect. A "potential theft" discount is going to have to be baked into any deal with Samsung from now on?

post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think the calls for Apple to dump Samsung as a supplier are a little premature. 

 

Samsung the Component Supplier is not the same as Samsung the Smartphone Maker. 

Well, actually, in the incidents at trial that's not quite the case: the component supplier leaked like a sieve all over the smartphone maker.

post #56 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think the calls for Apple to dump Samsung as a supplier are a little premature. 

 

Samsung the Component Supplier is not the same as Samsung the Smartphone Maker. 

 

I agree. It's fairly normal for companies as large as Apple and Samsung to develop business relationships with other companies even when certain arms of the two companies are involved in ongoing litigation. If a company as vast and multi-faceted as Apple refused to trade with any businesses it had litigated against, business would become more difficult and expensive.

post #57 of 82

I wonder how much Samsung's yearly revenue would be without Apple.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #58 of 82
Quote:
Samsung hopes 'strict internal firewall' will protect Apple parts deals
Quote:
the company held an emergency meeting on Sunday led by vice chairman Coi Gee-sung and head of Samsung's mobile business

This announcement appears to be a tactic by Gee-sung Choi to answer a question before Apple asks it, to wit: "Going forward Mr. Kwon Oh-hyun (Samsung CEO) how can we protect ourselves from Samsung stealing our IP in the future?"

Moreover, being found guilty of stealing is a tremendous loss of face for Gee-sung and his division, I'll bet he disappears from the top of the masthead quick.
post #59 of 82

Personally, what Samsung is doing is conflict of interest.

 

A component supplier to various companies in a particular industry should NOT compete by bringing out a product that goes after the same market.

I think Samsung should spin off their computer and mobile divisions into COMPLETELY separate companies that don't report to Samsung top management and have to use a different name.

 

Just like Microsoft should not OEM their WIndows software to various computer, tablet, smartphone, server vendors and then backstab them by coming out with a competing product.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

post #60 of 82
deleted
Edited by kellya74u - 7/24/13 at 9:33am
post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges View Post

I wonder how much Samsung's yearly revenue would be without Apple.

Much lower.

First, take out the $10 B in products that Apple buys from Samsung.

Then, take out a large chunk of the mobile products that Samsung copied from Apple. Without their copying, they likely would have grown at rates comparable to the other OEMs, so their sales would probably be half of what they are now.

Then there are the second order effects. By having $10 B in business from Apple and many billions of dollars in ill-gotten mobile sales, Samsung had the leverage to optimize their manufacturing, make capital investments, and reduce their costs. That made them more competitive with everything they sell.

Again, even if Apple gets the damages tripled and the Tab added under Rule 50, Samsung has benefited greatly from their theft. That's not fair
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Samsung needs Apple and Apple needs Samsung. 

 

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/idINL3E8JR0PN20120827

 

Very true. There are few semiconductor manufacturers with the capacity and expertise to churn out the latest chips in the quantities Apple requires. Someone else mentioned IBM and Intel. Apple is already dependent on Intel for the Mac line and tried IBM for the PowerPC with unsatisfying results. Talk to NVidia about the vagaries of foundries.

 

Your user name made me think of Jeong Hae-ri in High Kick! and her fondness for short ribs. lol.gif

post #63 of 82

In the financial services industry it is often the case with a company that in one part of their building there is a team advising outside businesses. They will be intimately aware of their internal financial circumstances, and of any potential acquisitions, indeed they may well be recommending such a move. In another part of the same building, other employees of the same financial services company will be broking shares and earning commissions on such. There will be information in one part of the building that is worth millions to their colleagues in the other part of building. However, they will insist information is never passed on because there is a firewall, an imaginary barrier, between the two. Personally, I believe them. I also believe in unicorns and the Tooth Fairy.

Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by logandigges View Post

I wonder how much Samsung's yearly revenue would be without Apple.

They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.

 

I wonder how much of Samsung's $130B in gross revenue is tied to smartphones, tablets, and computers.

 

Samsung's business is TVs and appliances.

 

If you compared Apple to the similar related businesses of Samsung, Samsung is TINY.  Apple does more business each year than the combined revenue of Samsung's computer, mobile divisions combined.


Samsung sells lots of phones, but the majority of what they sell are the cheaper Android 2.X models that are dirt cheap.  That's THEIR market.  They have to PAY sales reps $25 in order to get sales in the Galaxy phone.

 

That's the reason why they are selling is because all of these reps have a special incentive.  Otherwise, no one is lining up to buy one.

 

I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point.  I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs.  Rely less on Samsung might be better.

post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.

 

I wonder how much of Samsung's $130B in gross revenue is tied to smartphones, tablets, and computers.

 

Samsung's business is TVs and appliances.

 

If you compared Apple to the similar related businesses of Samsung, Samsung is TINY.  Apple does more business each year than the combined revenue of Samsung's computer, mobile divisions combined.


Samsung sells lots of phones, but the majority of what they sell are the cheaper Android 2.X models that are dirt cheap.  That's THEIR market.  They have to PAY sales reps $25 in order to get sales in the Galaxy phone.

 

That's the reason why they are selling is because all of these reps have a special incentive.  Otherwise, no one is lining up to buy one.

 

I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point.  I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs.  Rely less on Samsung might be better.

 

True. Though I'd dare say that Samsung might rely on Smartphone revenue more than we might think:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-31/samsung-profit-rises-as-phone-sales-mask-slump-in-lcd-panels.html

 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/hardware/Samsung-Q2-falls-on-weak-LCD-sales/articleshow/9134922.cms

post #66 of 82

Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .

 

How much  to build a chip manufacturing plant  ?

Grocery Stores FEAR Him
Reply
Grocery Stores FEAR Him
Reply
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala View Post

Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .

 

How much  to build a chip manufacturing plant  ?

 

$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.

post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Being giddy over Samsung's market cap down $12B is quite childish. Like Tim Cook said, this isn't about money it's about values. Apple doesn't care about the mone they care about Samsung and others not copying them.

it's not about values... it's about business.

 

Need to know Non disclosures, Firewalls, pricing, supply preference, are all enticements to get their chip/component business.  Tim made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and Samsung became a partner.

 

However, partnerships sometimes end, when there are other solutions to the problem. Best have a good exit strategy.   Now that Tim Cook is in charge of the 'family business' and Steve is dead... Samsung may want to watch out for the 'notice to terminate contract'

 

 

It's just Business.

post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoradala View Post

Apple's wondering what to do with their $billions. . .

 

How much  to build a chip manufacturing plant  ?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

 

$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.

 

And that is just the 'Hard costs'  Skilled Labor and management, the rest of the downstream supply chaing.... Not worth the Return on investment.  Better to job this out...

 

What Apple wants to innovate in is what is made in the Fabs.  Hence their purchase of PA Semi.

 

The key thing is to always have a second and third source.

post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

The firewall is a fig leaf.   The Samsung component division prepared a document on the iPhone that was used by the division making the Samsung phones.  Got to be other fabs that can make the A4/5 chips.  Intel?  IBM? TXN?  It makes sense to fab with a U company to keep trade secrets.  The rest of the stuff is mostly generic, except for QCOM telecom chips and they are not going to mess with Apple.  

 

That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!!

"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
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson View Post

 

$7-10bn for an advanced megafab these days.

 

PLUS gazillions in R&D to keep it pushing the envelope and not fall behind other fabbers... One does not jump in and out of this kind of business quickly.

"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
post #72 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

They only get about 3% of their total chip output, probably similar to the OEM screen business.

 

 

I'm sure Apple is always evaluating whether they should start to make their chips at one point.  I think it's admirable that they design their own ARM chips, but maybe they should strike a deal with Intel instead to mfg their chip designs.  Rely less on Samsung might be better.

 

While Apple only buys 3% of Samsung's chip business, I think it's a huge part of the special memory chip production Samsung makes that Apple uses in most of their products these days.

From iPods to the new retina MacBook Pros.

 

I think there was some talk between Apple and Intel on ARM chips, but that didn't happen for some reason.

"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
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

As long as it doesn't look like Apple's firewall, I don't see a problem.

Samsung chose to copy a block of Swiss cheese for their firewall, rather than copying Apple's.

post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

it's not about values... it's about business.

 

Need to know Non disclosures, Firewalls, pricing, supply preference, are all enticements to get their chip/component business.  Tim made them an offer they couldn't refuse, and Samsung became a partner.

 

However, partnerships sometimes end, when there are other solutions to the problem. Best have a good exit strategy.   Now that Tim Cook is in charge of the 'family business' and Steve is dead... Samsung may want to watch out for the 'notice to terminate contract'

 

 

It's just Business.

 

An entertaining, but otherwise insane post with no grounding in reality at all.  

 

It's all "business"? ... and "business" in the sense of the Mafia?  No room for values at all in your world?  

Maybe go home and watch some old Soprano episodes while you weave these little fantasies of yours.

 

Absolutely ridiculous.  

post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think the calls for Apple to dump Samsung as a supplier are a little premature. 

 

Samsung the Component Supplier is not the same as Samsung the Smartphone Maker. 

 

It's a family business though with different relatives heading up the various individual entities.  

 

It's also an extremely corrupt entity operating in a country with super lax rules on corruption.  Most of what passes for "regular business" in the USA is at root, corruption.  Here we are talking about a company that operates in a much looser environment, but yet it's considered one of the most corrupt businesses even there.  

 

Samsung would have been broken up into separate entities in almost any other western country years ago because of exactly these problems.  

post #76 of 82
"The Samsung component division prepared a document on the iPhone that was used by the division making the Samsung phones."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!!

And should give pause to any potential new Samsung business clients as well. "Firewall" lip service or no.

post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

That the document was created by the component division was the one part of the evidence during the trial that really made me sit up and go Waaaaat!!!

Exactly.

While Apple can't switch quickly from Samsung to someone else, anyone who can should do so. Clearly, Samsung can not be trusted.

Meanwhile, their continued dishonesty shows. While they TALK about a firewall between divisions, the component division sends a memo to the mobile division telling them everything that Apple is doing. Actions speak louder than words.

I wouldn't trust Samsung further than I can throw their headquarters building.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #78 of 82

Apple and Samsung have current contracts that will be honored through this process that guarantee that Samsung can not raise the prices of components nor impede delivery without penalty, however, when the terms of the current contracts are completed, it stands to reason that Apple will select another supplier for significant portions of chips.  While Apple may not be able to depend on another company to provide these parts exclusively, Apple does have the investment resources to encourage growth of smaller fabrication companies to produce parts for them with focused assistance from expertise internalized through their earlier purchase of PA Semi.  

 

The likely move is not a brash one, but a strategic one where suppliers are not competitors.  Qualified suppliers of components can be secured whom do not participate in manufacture of competing products, especially with significant investments made by Apple.  Apple has also made public statements regarding wanting to move more production back to the US.  This may very well be a motivating push toward returning business from South Korea through investments in, and purchase of parts from, smaller foundries in the US.  This issue will likely be a defining moment for Tim Cook, his leadership abilities, and his supply chain prowess.

 

Lastly, this issue is visible to every one of Samsung's clients.  They are all being made aware of Samsung's thievery and will likely also be weighing their options accordingly upon completion of their own contracts with Samsung.  These other companies are headed by CEO's and Boards of Directors who ultimately must answer to shareholders.  If shareholders are convinced that Samsung can not be trusted with Apple's business, they may feel that Samsung can not be trusted with their own.  As a result, the damage Samsung has incurred will not be seen immediately, regardless of their current stock price, but will be seen when Samsung's clients are due to either renew or decline future contracts with Samsung.  Considering that Samsung's actions are cultural in nature, shareholders of client corporations likely can not be reassured that significant changes in management will produce trustworthy results. Time will tell.

Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
post #79 of 82

Don't under-estimate Samsung, in the past 2 decades.  They've successfully defeated many large competitors with the same tactics.  Producing lower cost copies. 

 

Sony and Panasonic particularly lost a ton of business in the consumer market due to Samsung copying their VCRs, LCD, and Plasma technology.  In any industry as long as it's hardware, Samsung can reverse engineer and copy it.  For many years and over decades Samsung was the low-cost Sony clone.

post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision33r View Post

Don't under-estimate Samsung, in the past 2 decades.  They've successfully defeated many large competitors with the same tactics.  Producing lower cost copies. 

Sony and Panasonic particularly lost a ton of business in the consumer market due to Samsung copying their VCRs, LCD, and Plasma technology.  In any industry as long as it's hardware, Samsung can reverse engineer and copy it.  For many years and over decades Samsung was the low-cost Sony clone.

Yes, but which of those other companies stood up to Samsung to put a stop to their blatant theft?

All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. Apple decided that they had to do something. Maybe if someone else had stood up to Samsung years ago, they would have learned their lesson long ago.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung hopes 'strict internal firewall' will protect Apple parts deals