or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Editorial: Apple's Ax SoC move from Samsung to TSMC can't happen fast enough
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: Apple's Ax SoC move from Samsung to TSMC can't happen fast enough - Page 3

post #81 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

 

I take it you've never worked for a company the size of Samsung? Companies of that size barely know how to get different departments talking to each other at the best of times. I've worked for a couple of Japanese corporations where the rivalry between different offices was far worse than any external competitor. 

While what you said may be generally true, during the trial in CA between Apple and Samsung evidence came out that the Component division was creating detailed reports about the capabilities of the iPhone and feeding that to the mobile division. I found the amount of leakage between the two divisions amazing.

"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 #82 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

The end goal is for Apple to get into the fab business.  Remember that Apple wants to build the whole widget.  They have the money and could buy their way in.

Apple will get into the fab business when Jobs returns to run the company.

 

Apple is happy to be in the chip design business and will not ever start fabbing chips... besides the ARM chip fabbing business is highly competitive and thin margin business... that's why Intel is not interested in ARM as long as they have a fat margin making what they do now. Apple did try to get Intel into making ARM chips for them, but Intel rather would somehow get their ADAM chips to be less power hungry. They see that as their way to go. 

"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 #83 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Do you think it's smart that Apple is dropping a reliable mass supplier for one that hasn't proven itself yet?

 

Do you agree with the original article that Apple moved away from Samsung because they thought the courts would find in Samsung's favor over some minor patents?

 

 

Apple was put in a lose-lose situation by Samsung's clear copying and the discovery that the semiconductor division was feeding detailed analysis to the handset division. Previous to the trial, Apple even tried to cut a deal with Samsung to license the IP that they were infringing on. Samsung was just determined to do it like they have done to other companies for years and years in the appliance business, for one example. I guess another way to ask your question would be, "Do you think it's smart that Apple is dropping a criminal mass supplier for one that hasn't proven it's unethical yet?"

"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 #84 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

... during the trial in CA between Apple and Samsung evidence came out that the Component division was creating detailed reports about the capabilities of the iPhone and feeding that to the mobile division. I found the amount of leakage between the two divisions amazing.

 

If Samsung did that, wouldn't Apple have sued them over it?  At the least, that's an NDA breach and should have some penalty.

 

What did the component division supposedly report on?  After all, they only provided the CPU and the Flash memory, and perhaps early displays... and there would be few surprises on any of those.

 

They wouldn't know anything else, like case design or radios or OS / UI / app software.

 

I suppose knowing that they were going to, say, a lower power CPU would be good intel, but again hardly something that couldn't be guessed at.

 

Anyone got a link to one of these reports or a story on them?  Thanks!


Edited by KDarling - 4/13/13 at 8:50pm
post #85 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't really think it's appropriate to have your main competitor making your chips for you. You don't want them having the power to cut off supply, and you also don't want them seeing the next gen designs. Apple is doing the right thing. And following the linked articles it's quite impressive how quickly TSMC have built new facilities.

 

While I agree that it's not a good idea for Apple to use its main competitor to make chips, it's not entirely true that Samsung can just cut off supply whenever they feel like it. There are supply contracts in place. And also, Samsung would lose revenue from Apple if they just cut off supply whenever they felt like it. 

post #86 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

If Samsung did that, wouldn't Apple have sued them over it?  At the least, that's an NDA breach and should have some penalty.

 

Anyone got a link to one of these reports or a story on them?  Thanks!

 

There is, unfortunately, another type of 'hiding' which you have failed, amongst many other things, to mention.

 

Those who hide behind the fact that it is technically impossible to prove everything that happened, all of the time.

Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
Pot is legal in North Korea.
That explains a considerable amount.

"The United States will respond proportionally at a place and time we choose..."
Reply
post #87 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvswarup View Post

 

While I agree that it's not a good idea for Apple to use its main competitor to make chips, it's not entirely true that Samsung can just cut off supply whenever they feel like it. There are supply contracts in place. And also, Samsung would lose revenue from Apple if they just cut off supply whenever they felt like it. 

Yes they would have to go to court and face the consequences, but *physically* they could cut off supply.

post #88 of 109

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso
 
While I agree with you about TSMC (and they've been buying up new fab equipment by the boatload lately), your assessment that Intel would be 2-3 years away from being able to provide fab services, is a number pulled straight out of your ass. Something to consider when you've just said that someone else has "no idea what they're talking about".

 

LOL. May be i am. But you should prove it to me, with Facts. And i have repeated myself far too many times. 

 

Majority People, like you; assume it is like a design handed out to Intel and Intel will produce it within 5 - 6 months with decent yield.

Majority People, like you; assume Intel is already producing chips for many FPGA company, and therefore isn't far from doing it from others.

 

I doesn't work like that.

 

Even if Intel decided today, right at this moment to Fab SoC for Apple, Intel will need to acquire all the relenvant IPs, and assuming that they did so at the exact same moment, they need to hand out design tools to Apple, let them design it, come back, samples, tune. This takes at least a year even with the best possible Engineers from Intel and Apple working and assuming no hike up in the process, which is unheard of in the industry.

 

And with the management changes in Intel, it is possibly up to the Next CEO to decide if they will jump into the Fab business or not.

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply

There are only two kind of people in this world.

Those who dont understand Apple and those who misunderstood Apple.

Reply
post #89 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_mac_lover View Post

Why can't Apple simply work with intel ?

They do.

However, Intel's interests are also opposed to Apple's at times. Look at the Ultrabook deal. Apple revolutionizes the laptop business and none of their competitors can come close to making a decent competing product. So Intel offers Apple's competitors a reference design and hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies.

Apple really has no choice in the desktop and laptop space. Intel is really the only choice (AMD is always "wait until you see your next generation"). But for ARM processors, Apple has choices and would need to be very cautious about sending more money to Intel (which could easily be used to subsidize other tablet and phone makers just like Ultrabook makers).
"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 #90 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The photo's actually not that old, but my wife hates taking pictures so I'm stuck with it 1smile.gif

At least I put a real picture up.  It'd be interesting (and no doubt revealing) if everyone did so.


Are you same digitalclips who got banned on MacRumors, then the mods called you out for making up a false story why it happened?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=16416483&postcount=229

You look good in your photo, you must have been about 5 when you started in the business 1wink.gif

Re ban... Yep same digitalclips, but in fairness I was only guessing as to the source of the ban. I think reporting here on AI tag I was 'making up false stories' is a little elaborative. I had no other idea what it could have been and 'assumed' incorrectly that's all. I rarely used MacRumors always preferring AI and didn't look into it any further. I accepted their ruling that I'd done something wrong and moved on. To this day I have no idea what it was. If it was for calling you something rude after what you said it was worth the ban. 1smile.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #91 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

There is, unfortunately, another type of 'hiding' which you have failed, amongst many other things, to mention.

 

Well, sure. Unless we all write thousand page essays for each post, then there will always be something we fail to mention, but which readers are expected to know.

 

For example, the fact that this whole thread about TSMC is based on a hearsay article in the Korea Times.
 
Quote:
Those who hide behind the fact that it is technically impossible to prove everything that happened, all of the time.

 

In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial.   There might've been, but I don't recall any.
post #92 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Well, sure. Unless we all write thousand page essays for each post, then there will always be something we fail to mention, but which readers are expected to know.

 

For example, the fact that this whole thread about TSMC is based on a hearsay article in the Korea Times.
 

 

In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial.   There might've been, but I don't recall any.

 

I witnessed the trial, I've reviewed the publicly available documents you could have (were you not too busy pondering if they may or may not exist, and who really knows?!) ann frankly, the only people who have an interest in saying that Samsung didn't maliciously cheat, lie and backstab Apple are those who are desperately looking for success stories within the global failure that is the Android project.

 

Google is convinced enough that Android isn't working out to sideline Mr. Android himself and start with the damage control. It will be another 3-4 years before the fans realize they are cheering for a failed idol, just like BGR still hasn't quite got it that BlackBerry has failed and Paul Thurrott still has faith that WP8 can turn things around for Microsoft. Perhaps by then, Google will have rebadged Chrome OS as "Android 7" and everyone will have forgotten what a dead end it was to attempt to copy iOS as an "open" distro of Java/Linux, without a business model in place to sustain or manage any of it.  

post #93 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

Speaking of thinking ahead - while Dilger waxes lyrical about TMSC and how they are planning on working on 20nm and 16nm next, Samsung has been busy actually building a fab for 20nm and 14nm  which is due to come on-stream later this year, so Samsung could be producing 20nm Exynos dies early next year.  They are already producing SOCs with ARM A15 cores.  No doubt Apple will get around to A15 cores at some point and we will be told how bold and groundbreaking their innovation is. /s

I agree with K. Darling - It does appear Apple are biting off their nose to spite their face with their current attitude to Samsung.
Lets see, Apple's current chips are more efficient than Samsung's, They have proven they will copy Apple and then try to shame Apple into accepting it. Apple would be foolish to not cut their ties with Companies who will will use knowledge of their IP and production plans to compete against them. The same Applies to Google, it's clear Apple did fear competition with them but they shouldn't have to compete against themselves with the profit going to a other company.
post #94 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


While I agree that much of this is interpretive BS

 

Daniel Eran Dilger is an anagram for "I grind near-dead dirge, earn all"

 

Coincidence? I don't think so ...


Edited by Beezlegrunk - 4/14/13 at 12:23pm
post #95 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Consider just the expression he used, "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." He's not saying that Apple is moving away from Samsung for business reasons that don't align with Apple (to put it mildly) he's saying that Apple, as a company, is not acting in its or its shareholder best interests.

He's saying Apple has no concern for its own well being so long as it can negatively affect Samsung's bottom line. He's saying Apple, a company, is so overwhelmed with anger and hate that it will damage itself greatly in order to damage Samsung even a little bit. How can you see that as a reasonable and rational response?
Yes this is what the Article is saying and it makes no sense. He is trying to maximize attention.
post #96 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

They are already producing SOCs with ARM A15 cores.  No doubt Apple will get around to A15 cores at some point and we will be told how bold and groundbreaking their innovation is.

1) You really need to look into what A15 was designed for. There is a reason that big.LITTLE exists as a quasi-octocore SoC that can only use the quad-core A7 (not even a Cortex-A8 or A9) or quad-core A15 at one time. If the A15 was so ideal for a handheld device at all times then why not use a single quad-core A15. It would reduce cost, space and complexity. But they don't, for reasons that are well tread. Think about it? Have you ever seen dual-core ARM11 and dual-core A9 combined as a physically — but not functionally — quad-core SoC?

2) October 18th, 2011: http://www.arm.com/about/newsroom/arm-and-tsmc-tape-out-first-20nm-arm-cortex-a15-multicore-processor.php

3) Let's remember that the goal is to have the highest performance possible within a power envelope. Apple is not only ahead of this game in their device designs, but their SoC designs and their OS coding. Some off the shelf ARM chip slapped on mostly predesigned board and stuck with Android simply isn't going to cut it. You can throw all the buzzwords you want it and claim Apple sucks because it's doesn't have big.LITTLE in an iPhone before Samsung but it's all stuff that shows you really just don't understand technology.

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 #97 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

In the sub thread you're replying to, it's absolutely technically possible to prove whether or not any supposed Samsung Semiconductor Division documents were revealed at the trial.   There might've been, but I don't recall any.

Were you asleep during the entire trial? The documents were well publicized in nearly every forum that discusses Apple and/or Samsung:

Here's the information on the document.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Samsung-132Page-Document-Shows-Detailed-Design-Comparison-to-iPhone-504855/

And here's the information that it was from Samsung's Semiconductor Division:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230478/Closing_arguments_begin_in_Apple_vs_Samsung_patent_trial

"They included an internal analysis by Samsung Semiconductor of the iPhone before it went on sale,"

Your denial that such documents exist is proof beyond any doubt that you're a shill and a troll. Anyone with even a shred of honesty wouldn't play the "there were no documents" card.
"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 #98 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They still make Atom chips? lol.gif

 

Not that I don't want them to eventually get it right, but they're not gonna get it right fast enough.

Yea thats intel in a nutshell. They made the atom even better than it first was (64 bit),but now 2-3 years later its "32-bit". Now theres mores law for you... or was it that everything is getting smaller and smaller every year?1confused.gif

post #99 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

Yea thats intel in a nutshell. They made the atom even better than it first was (64 bit),but now 2-3 years later its "32-bit". Now theres mores law for you... or was it that everything is getting smaller and smaller every year?

 

First, Intel cut the chip back to 32-bit to make it more power-efficient. Obviously they may dial it back even more to have a chip that will compete with the ARM in mobile applications. On another front, they've also cut back the clock rate as well, it was all covered in a paper Intel published around the first of the month. Look it up!

"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 #100 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Here's the information on the document.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Samsung-132Page-Document-Shows-Detailed-Design-Comparison-to-iPhone-504855/

And here's the information that it was from Samsung's Semiconductor Division:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230478/Closing_arguments_begin_in_Apple_vs_Samsung_patent_trial
(immature personal attacks snipped)

 

Your sources are incorrect.  Which could explain where this story started.

 

The document you're talking about was a UI review from the Samsung SW Verification Group, which is a group in Gumi, SK, where they also put together cell phones.  They're responsible for making sure UI guidelines are followed.

 

The UI review group is NOT part of the Semiconductor Division as was mistakenly claimed by that ComputerWorld article.  They are part of the Mobile Division.  The computer chip division would have no reason to do a UI comparison.

 

Quote:
"They included an internal analysis by Samsung Semiconductor of the iPhone before it went on sale,"

 

If they did, the UI document you're referring to certainly isn't it.  For one thing, it was done years after the iPhone came out.

 


Edited by KDarling - 4/14/13 at 4:00pm
post #101 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Your sources are incorrect.  Which could explain where this story started.

Uh huh. Who to believe? Virtually every published report in the technical literature ...... or someone who sounds more like a paid Samsung shill every day.

Furthermore, are you saying that there was only one report involved? How so you know that the one that you cited is the same one? And how do you know that the one you cited didn't originate from the semiconductor division (like every other article on the subject states)? And how do you know that the information wasn't related in some other way?

And, even if you were correct, how does it support your claim that Samsung wasn't blatantly copying Apple?
"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 #102 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Uh huh. Who to believe? Virtually every published report in the technical literature ...... or someone who sounds more like a paid Samsung shill every day.

 

Good grief.  You sound like Baghdad Bob, denying that American tanks were right behind the building where he was talking to reporters.  

 

Look just above in post #100.  The evidence is right there that the 132 page UI report from the article YOU cited, was done years after the iPhone came out.  It didn't require secrets being handed between divisions.  It just required going out and buying an iPhone, like anyone else in 2010.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, are you saying that there was only one report involved? 

 

I clearly said that there could be other reports, but that this one obviously wasn't the report that someone here thought they had read about as being in the trial and showing that "the semiconductor division was feeding detailed analysis to the handset division"... a claim that clearly implies passing customer secrets between divisions before a new model comes out.  (If it was afterwards, nobody would care.)

post #103 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

First, Intel cut the chip back to 32-bit to make it more power-efficient. Obviously they may dial it back even more to have a chip that will compete with the ARM in mobile applications. On another front, they've also cut back the clock rate as well, it was all covered in a paper Intel published around the first of the month. Look it up!

That is just intel propaganda, that suits their cause. Actually its still 64-bit and works well (BSD & linux) other than their graphics driver (intel d2700mud for example has PowerVR SGX545 which they integrated that doesnt have a decent 64-bit driver. intel pulled the 64-bit drivers of the dowload center and told everybody that the board is now 32-bit only instead of geting a fix?!?! To me this looks more like an attempt to try not to  canibilize their small server market (=home servers etc, that have the cheapest processors and also energy efficient, think core i3)

 

And actually the clockrate for this board is 2,13GHz and that is quite decent otherwise compared to atom 330 boards 1,6GHz. 


Edited by habi - 4/14/13 at 10:54pm
post #104 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by habi View Post

That is just intel propaganda, that suits their cause. Actually its still 64-bit and works well (BSD & linux) other than their graphics driver (intel d2700mud for example has PowerVR SGX545 which they integrated that doesnt have a decent 64-bit driver. intel pulled the 64-bit drivers of the dowload center and told everybody that the board is now 32-bit only instead of geting a fix?!?! To me this looks more like an attempt to try not to  canibilize their small server market (=home servers etc, that have the cheapest processors and also energy efficient, think core i3)

And actually the clockrate for this board is 2,13GHz and that is quite decent otherwise compared to atom 330 boards 1,6GHz. 

Or maybe it's just a realization that 64 bit doesn't add any value for a smartphone or netbook.
"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 #105 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Or maybe it's just a realization that 64 bit doesn't add any value for a smartphone or netbook.

What the hell are you talking about? I´m talking about an desktop atom mobo made by intel. An upgrade to the previous revision of the same product line. I dont believe those fairytails your implying one bit. Its just lntels way to say, you have to pay 2x the price to get anything similar to that previous board. Its just a pitty they made it almost worthless for homeserver use. Its always nice to be able to use the whole memory you are going to add to the machine. Well theres always AMD fusion....Good by  Intel.

 

BTW: Why would they waste good silicone on the chip if they really wanted to just make a 32-bit system. and isnt variation (variation=bigger market segment) just a better competitive edge for most manufacturers. But i guess intels in a business that they can chose whom they want to have as a customer. They dont need anymore...


Edited by habi - 4/15/13 at 7:36am
post #106 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Your comments continue to amaze with how stupid they really are.

 

Let's forget about the Samsung employee leaking data about Apple screen purchases to a hedge fund to give them advance information on how many iPads Apple was planning on making. Or that Samsung has talked about a "firewall" between Samsung Semi and Samsung Mobile to ease Apple's concerns about information transfer going on. Or that Samsung put a person in charge that had worked with Apple and had a good relationship with Apple, again to ease concerns. Or the fact that Apple is now designing completely custom processors (while Samsung just clones ARM designs) and since Samsung fabs these chips they get an inside look at what Apple has done to make their SoC's.

 

No, you're right. Apple doesn't have a single good reason to dump Samsung as a supplier for SoC's. /S/S/S/S/S/S/S for the people who don't seem to get it.

 

Corporate firewalls are a standard part of any large multinational that deals with multiple clients, and these clients will demand them.

 

And do you know just how complex a modern SoC is - you can't just look at the tape-out schematics and work out what is going on, and even if you did it would take a long time get the same into your own designs - chip design is a very long process. You're better off just doing your own market analysis and integrating what you think is needed up front, which I am sure is what Samsung are doing, and indeed that Samsung's SoCs it is releasing this year are projects started up to five years ago.

 

And sticking someone in charge who is familiar with Apple - seems like a sane idea in any business dealing with Apple if they can do it.

 

Apple is designing custom ARM cores, yes - that's what they paid all that money for the chip design companies they've bought. Samsung is more of an integrator (and Apple was until the A6) and is happy to use the technology that ARM provides, as it meets their needs. Remember that the Apple line of SoCs has a common family in the Samsung SoCs, that Samsung has been making for years and years - e.g., the S3C44B0 in 2000.

post #107 of 109
There is only one priority when it comes to moving, and that is the cost/profit ratio. The exact same can be said for the long term move from Google maps to IOS maps. The use of a multitude is screen suppliers is also about cost and supply. You can also bet that the rumoured handout to Sharp helped guarantee an incredible cost/quality ration. Reading into those Samsung rumours, costs got cut by as much as 50%
post #108 of 109
This is all very well, but I'd like to know exactly when Apple is going to transition to TSMC's foundries - with the SoC's in the upcoming iPhone and iPad refreshes? I hope so...
post #109 of 109

I still figure they will transition to Intel.

Yet there are quite high risks for both Intel and TSMC dedicating themselves to Apple.

 

Just slightly below that, they might just go with Quallcom+TSMC.

No one knows what percentage of the Samsung Exynos like SOCs rely on Samsung knowledge. 

 

 

As far as I know Quallcom's Krait uses near the exact same licensed ARM design so that path is a very fast option.

There are more than 2 licensees of that special but older Krait and Swift  ARMv7 core with hardware div.


Edited by aBeliefSystem - 4/17/13 at 2:53am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Editorial: Apple's Ax SoC move from Samsung to TSMC can't happen fast enough