Apple's rumored chip switch from Samsung to TSMC may send shockwaves through industry - Page 2

 

 

Nope, partly..   Samsung also manufactures Qualcomm's snapdragons. 

 

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/07/04/qualcomm.partners.with.rival.samsung.on.s4.processor/

 

goes on to show that TSMC probably doesn't have the kind of capacity or quality to meet Apple's demand. And Samsung's own Exynos now supports LTE:

 

http://rootzwiki.com/news/_/articles/announcements/samsung-galaxy-note-2-marries-quad-core-exynos-to-lte-in-the-us-all-major-carriers-by-november-r1132

Edited by tooltalk - 11/28/12 at 10:22am

 

Nope, that's a Apple fanboy lie / propaganda.  Apple doesn't license its so-called core UX patents.  Apple's offer to Samsung in 2010 largely consisted of generic mobile OS / utility patents had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent lawsuits. 

 

Edited by tooltalk - 11/28/12 at 10:33am

You seem to mis a couple of things. The various foundries make chips based on processes they tune for specific needs. So even though Samsung and IBM use similar tools they tune those tools and their plants for different needs. IBM had never really been concerned with low thermal power chips so going with IBM would be less than ideal for Apple.

The other thing to realize here is the assumption that TSMC has an inferior process. This does not appear to be the case at all. First you have to remember that Apple via Intrinsity is responsible for Samsung's success with low power semiconductors and the ARM chips they have been selling. There have been multiple leaks about where TSMC is with respect to its next gen process, frankly it is looking pretty good. Beyond that recent chip sets from TSMC (GPUs, LTE and other chip sets) have been performing rather impressively. The idea that going to TSMC would be a regression isn't based on solid fact, they reality is we might see an improvement thermally.

In other news - and just as shocking - I decided to buy some groceries at Walmart instead of Target - will the Retail giants be able to cover? 

You do realize that one of Samsungs biggest plants is in the US?

Beyond that Apple can't just build a plant and steal somebody else's production techniques. These foundries invest huge amounts in technology development through various partnerships so for Apple to even have a crack at this they would have to buy into a partnership and probably engage in significant cash outlays for manufacturing rights.

 

Samsung's Austin complex employs about two thousands highly-skilled tech workers (vs the vast majority of Apple's US employees who work at retail stores making pittance in wages).

Edited by tooltalk - 11/28/12 at 10:48am

Apple wants to be rid of any relationship with Samsung and Google b/c, very simply, both have stolen IP from Apple.

 

The motivation for severing ties to them both goes back to Job's saying, "To be successful in tech, you have to be 10 years ahead of the competition." 

 

Even with a few miss steps, Apple is doing this. Certainly in hardware design, i.e., screens, batteries, enclosures, etc. Software they're leagues ahead in OSX and iOS.

 

Distancing themselves from the IP thieves at Samsung and Google will go along way ensuring this.

Depends on the size of your grocery order.

Seems a lot of comments here aren't using the correct meaning of the term "shockwave" as it applies to this article.

As long as Apple has its bases covered.

Apple could fall a long way with a screw up in chip fabrication.

The devil you know etc.

A brand new from the ground up manufacturing plant is more like 2.5 to 5 billion dollars to cover Apples needs. These plants aren't cheap and outdate quickly. Worst in Apples case what do they do with the plant afterward.

You see TSMC can continue to make use of a plant after a couple of years to feed customers with lesser demands. Apples options are far more limited as a plant could become fairly useless to them after 4 years. In effect you end up selling for scrap metal prices before you have even paid for the machinery. Not good. Could Apple find a way to DIY, possibly but I'm not too sure it would have a positive impact on the product line.

 

Don't bother answering as I have you blocked because of your poor/offensive posts in the past but ...

 

You lie.  

 

The article doesn't back up your statement at all.  

It must be nice to have such a fine pair of rose coloured glasses that everything you read seems to support your point of view.  

 

Ok, Intrinsity was Samsung's business partner when they developed Hummingbird SoC.  Apple bought Intrinsity afterward (in 2010) and likewise it's silly to claim that "Apple" is responsible for Samsung's success - only in Apple fanbois wet dream.

 

As for TSMC's next gen process, "Nvidia deeply unhappy with TSMC, claims 20nm essentially worthless"

  http://www.extremetech.com/computing/123529-nvidia-deeply-unhappy-with-tsmc-claims-22nm-essentially-worthless

Edited by tooltalk - 11/28/12 at 6:20pm

There was another article suggesting they turned down a previous bid from Apple. I think it was also from digitimes. Here is a link.

 

It's an understandable concern.

 

 

 

I'd expect it to be somewhat dependent on their growth. If they are still constrained in other areas or able to bring in more smaller contracts, it would limit some of this. You'd have to look at what they aren't taking on right now. It's likely easier to retrofit existing facilities than build new ones. We also don't know the rates negotiated by Apple. If the margins aren't as great, it may take less total revenue to replace that amount of operating income. Layoffs could still come in that scenario, but you seem to be stuck on the big number there.

There are other foundries like UMC and Global Foundries to name a few. It would be wiser if Apple spreads the risk between them.

It is not like Lego where you simply hand them the design and they built it. The design has to be optimize for each node and each foundry using their tools. So you cant really port your A6 to TSMC when the design and tuning has been with Samsung in mind.

And this is the same even if the Foundry are within the same IBM alliance. The difficulty will be lower but still an easy task. So to simply put, it is not technically and economically feasible to design a chip with two foundry in mind.

TSMC doesn't have the capacity for Apple yet, but they are working very hard in making them available. Not once in history of TSMC have I seen them ramp up production and expansion schedule as quick and as fast as they are now.

Intel is another candidate. Intel is having idle Fab sitting around and they are costing them dearly. With the change of CEO it could be possible that Intel Fab chips for Apple. And Intel has more then enough capacity in doing so, however Intel simply dont have enough experience in being a Fab partner while TSMC has been doing a great job, That could change of course, but i am not sure if Intel has decided on their path yet, become a Fab partner, or continue with their own path on x86 SoC.

Some time ago Apple was using 80% of Samsungs capacity to manufacture custom chips. This isn't a wet dream and frankly I believe the numbers are higher today. Apple is using a huge nmber of custom chips that directly drive the success of Samsungs foundries. Note that that is NVidia that couldn't get its chips to work on the same process AMD had no problem with. So do you really want to believe NVidia?
It is hardly worthless. It might have taken awhile to arrive but chips are coming off the lines and performing well. These aren't NVidia chips but that is more NVidias problems than TSMC.

Well yes and no. It certainly isn't as simple as some here would like to believe. However I suspect that Apple has a high level representation of their processor architecture that can simplify porting to different processes. More importantly even though the alliance member tools are similar they optimize processes for different needs. Samsung focused on low power for example.

However I have to dismiss this idea that designing a chip for two foundries isn't feasible. It really depends upon your volumes and the exposure you have if a partner fails. Samsung has been cranking out a lot of processors for Apple, it wouldn't take much of a glitch to suddenly not meet demand. When you hit 80 to 90 percent of a partners capability you have problems. TSMC seems to be over the growing pains they had with the last node roll out. At one time there was talk of skipping a node because development was going so well.
The problem is Intel doesn't want to go into the low margin foundry business. Also most of their idle production capability is at older nodes. It would be nice though as their fabs are in a leadership position. Maybe as the idle fabs start to hurt Intel a bit policy will change.

This will only end in more trouble for Apple. TSMC has had HISTORIC issues with fabs. This is weak sauce from Apple. "Prefer to settle" with Samsung, ProView etc... Then go behind their backs to axe Samsung from the supply chain going with a likely inferior fabricator.

The true nature of the ~new~ Apple is now revealed?

No one is going to build in the USA. It's too much nonsense to deal with.  A poorly educated labor force. Every municipal, county, state and arm of the US government passing conflicting laws willy nilly, labor laws that vary all over the map, no standardized forms of insurance or pensions, consultants, lawyers and pr people required constantly. Then comes the constant threat of unions and law suits from an industry of lawyers. 

 

Ive both opened and closed plants in the USA. The latter was by far the most profit effective even when moving to higher labor cost countries like Germany and Switzerland. Productivity was much higher, management was much simpler (no Human Resources, Legal or PR departments with their incessant list of rules we must adhere to) and high school graduates with a better knowledge of math and physics than most college grads in the USA, let alone high school graduates.

 

That is understandably frustrating. I wanted to mention that Samsung has a few plants in the US, so it's not like none of these companies ever build here, in spite of the issues.

 

 

 

The way they teach some of these subjects in the US is absolutely horrible. The subjects themselves don't have to be inherently difficult. I wish I knew how Germany and Switzerland differed in their teaching methods. You just happened to mention two subjects that I like.

I'm not sure where this baloney about an inferior fabricator comes from. There isn't a foundry anywhere that hasn't had problems at one time or another. Even Samsung slipped almost a year with the transition to the last node. Proof is in the pudding and right now TSMC has the attention of a few buyers because they are doing pretty good. Will they screw up at the next node, hard to say but let's face it the last node shrink simply did not go well with anybody.

 

ROLF?  Of course, Samsung customized and produced their hummingbird SoC (aka, A4) for Apple used in earlier iDevices, while Apple twiddled their thumbs.  Furthermore, Samsung was already growing by leaps and bounds without Apple - in fact, by 2010, Samsung was almost twice as big as Sony (or most of its Japanese competitor) all without Apple's so-called generous patronage. In fact, Sony was Samsung's customer #1. Apple was in the top 10 for the most of the past decade. 

I'm actually wondering where the 80% figure came from, but regardless of that, it's silly to think that Samsung would not try to line up new customers in a time of transition.

Definitely
 

I get it.  Apple have got big and some people hate Apple being on top.  People make up their own minds.  I've made mine up.

 

Samsung are on their way out of Apple's business by the looks of things.

 

They stabbed Apple in the back and were rightfully sued for it.

 

Samsung products are now on my 'no fly' list.  They're a mediocre company.  They don't even make the best Android phone.

 

Samsung make cheap plastic copies of Apple products.  Ape-ing Apple's marketing, design and interfaces.  Sure, Samsung's products are popular.  So is windows. Both are mediocre.  I don't see where Samsung are innovating at all.

 

Apple?  It's iPhone is a world class, leading design.  It's an understated work of art.  Upclose.  It's a swiss watch.  A jewel.  Beautiful to hold and behold.  I can't say that about the '3'.  It's obvious and 'cheap' compared to the '5'.  

 

Where's Samsung's world class operating system?  Where's their landmark computer hardware?  Where's the world class eco system?  Where's their class leading computers?  Or retail redefining computer and gadjet stores?  Where's their ease of use?  Where's it's world class App store which redefined how the software industry sells?  Where was it when the iPhone landed?  Where's their production defining manufacturing process at the bleeding edge?

 

Take the '3'.  It's a fat, bloated and predictable (add in 'showy' but no tell) design which apes an iPod or earlier 3GS design.  The back has a thin plastic lid that covers the access to the battery?  It's whites on the screen are dull.  The interface bitter, cluttered and poorly laid out.  No wonder they use the 'dandlion puff ball' on the screen in adverts because the interface royally sucks.  The screen is over saturated.  It's clumsy to use in software and clumsy in the hand.  A 'fatlet'.  An ifat.  In court documents it was revealed they honed their inspiration from certain Apple products eg iPhone.  Copy that.  That's successful.

 

I hope Apple sue them into oblivion and find other suppliers.  Hopefully the sting of a 1 billion loss in court and 2 billion of lost revenue from a KEY customer will deprive them of their 'inside' R&D (more revenue lost because they'll have to innovate themselves...)  

 

Just a 'me too fast follower' company.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

I'll be rooting for Sharp and TMSC to supply the screens and socs Apple use going forward.  Anybody but Samsung.  Apple have 120 billion in the bank which they can use to power-up competitors to Samsung.  Along with the settlement to HTC (should be a nice little earner...) they can clip the wings of Samsung.  Competition is good.  But when you create something and people just rip you off?  Not good.

 

Apple make their own software and hardware.  That combination makes them best of class for me.  They aint perfect.

 

But I couldn't imagine a world without Apple.

 

Left to Windows in computers?  And Samsung in phones?

 

*Shudders at the thought of it.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

I could share a glass of wine with Cool Daddy.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

As far as Samsung's transgressions go, they certainly have been ripoff merchants. As far as Android products go, the Samsung GS2, GS3, HTC One X, One XL, One XPlus, Nexus4, Nexus 7... There are a lot of quality Android devices coming out now. Apple is not "at the top" and therefore "hated".

It's a 50-50 world. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, I would say, delusional. Maybe it wasn't so 1-3 years ago because Android was clunky on 2.x and 3.x was no redeemer.

But 4.x Android... Beware, the juggernaut is rising.

If one were to just step away from the iOS ecosystem briefly, one would see what else is happening in the real world.

I prefer to keep an open mind because I find I am happier that way.

Not even close.

They do have arguably one of the best Android phones. I prefer the HTC One X as my "flagship" Android phone when I get it, but S2 and S3 were significant.

Windows aped Mac and did a terrible job. Samsung aped Apple and did a good job. They have added some enhancements since while iPhone stagnated somewhat.

Well, yes, but perfect hardware style is not for everyone. Some people ostensibly like the S2 and S3. The HTC One X is arguably as beautiful as the iPhone 3G/3GS and iPhone 4/4S. iPhone 5 is in a class of its own but you don't wear a swiss watch everyday (well, not everyone anyway). Sometimes a Seiko is alright.

Android 4.2 and Google Play. That's what Samsung needs, and what it uses. Those two alone are taking on iOS in a massive way. As for production, you do realise they make the Apple chips right? So if they're not bleeding edge then Apple isn't bleeding edge in terms of ARM. Don't forget Tegra, Qualcomm etc coming out strong now and definitely in 2013.

This is more personal and/or prejudiced distaste.

Not going to happen, not with Tim "I'd rather settle" Cook.

A follower, but like in racing when you slipstream the car in front you can get a good speed boost and overtake it.

This isn't the end of Samsung in mobile/tablet, it's only the ~Beginning~.
Edited by sr2012 - 12/9/12 at 10:03pm

I think all people are in the real world, making sound decisions. Whether they use Android or iOS is either a money or preference decision and not people being delusional or anything like that.

Perhaps a short version will make my point clear: YMMV

Fair enough. However, I don't think money is even an issue in the iOS-Android "debate". If you're talking Samsung, HTC and Nexus, vs iPhone 4S and iPhone 5, on contract, in Australia at least, they're all the same. That is, 2 year contracts on Telstra for example, they're all $60/month to $80+/month AUD depending on the data you want.

So for smartphones, we're talking higher-end Android vs iOS, there's not a money issue for phones on contract.

Really? Wow. I thought many choose HTC, Samsung etc because it was (so much) cheaper. Ok, so some models are, but not higher end. Didn't expect that, actually. Thanks.

Yeah, even in the USA: http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/smartphones.html for example... Galaxy Note 2 is more expensive than entry-level iPhone 5, HTC One X+ is same price as entry-level iPhone 5.

So, indeed, not only is it around the same price, the Android phone might actually offer ~better~ value compared to iPhone 5.

You've of course got all the cheap crappy Android phones but I don't think those are anything to shout about, the game will be "won and lost" at the mid-to-high-end. For the mid-end it's still a bit rocky for Android but I think the manufacturers are learning to "distill" the good stuff out of the high-end to make mid-end stuff that doesn't suck, rather than stuff the channel with mediocre mid-end phones that have nothing in common with the higher-end phones.

So Long, Samsung: Apple Switches To TSMC For A6X Processor Production
BY Aldrin Calimlim on Tue January 01st, 2013 a6x apple apple vs. samsung TSMC

http://appadvice.com/appnn/2013/01/so-long-samsung-apple-switches-to-tsmc-for-a6x-processor-production

Apple has already requested Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to produce its next-generation A6X processors, reports the Taiwanese financial newspaper Commercial Times.

There has been widespread speculation that TSMC is set to take over production of Apple’s iDevice processors from Samsung.

Samsung is the supplier of the current A6 and A6X processors found in the iPhone 5 and the fourth-generation iPad, respectively. But Samsung is also, by all appearances, Apple’s foremost competitor and litigator.

Not unreasonably, the Cupertino-based iDevice maker seems intent on cutting ties with the South Korean electronics company. And one way of doing this is to partner with TSMC, which happens to be the world’s largest dedicated independent semiconductor foundry.

TSMC is expected to start producing the A6X processors, which will be of the 28 nm type rather than the 32 nm type from Samsung, in the first quarter of 2013. This is earlier than what had been forecasted by industry officials, who predicted that Apple would switch from Samsung to TSMC in the second half of the year.

TSMC’s A6X yield is expected to be mounted on the fifth-generation iPad and the second-generation iPad mini, which are rumored to be released early this year.

While it hasn’t officially commented on the matter, the semiconductor company has also been pegged as the likely suppliers of Apple’s 20 nm A7 processors.

Source: Commercial Times
Via: Yonhap News