or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › HTC next to accuse Samsung of using component supplies as a "competitive weapon"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTC next to accuse Samsung of using component supplies as a "competitive weapon"

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Apple isn't the only company grappling with its relationship to Samsung as both a smartphone component supplier and handset competitor. HTC recently complained that Samsung has "strategically declined" to provide it with crucial parts for years.

A report by Focus Taiwan cited Jack Tong, the president of HTC North Asia, giving an example of Samsung exploiting its needs as a component customers in order to sabotage HTC's smartphone operations and disrupt its sales.HTC: "We found that key component supply can be used as a competitive weapon."

Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product.

HTC's Desire won the "Highly Commended" award at the 2011 Mobile World Congress, with judges noting it "set the bar for Android phones across much of the world in 2010," making it a clear target for Samsung.

"We found that key component supply can be used as a competitive weapon," Tong said.

Taiwan declares war on Korea



In response, HTC has worked with Taiwan's Ministry of Economic Affairs to develop a local supply chain, both to ensure component availability and to lower costs for domestic manufacturers in the country. The Ministry is also working with Acer and Asustek (a firm Apple used to build the original iBook and MacBooks) to recruit foreign companies to develop display and other component production in Taiwan.

Taiwan's Fair Trade Commission has already launched an inquiry into Samsung's business practices following reports that the company paid people to disparage other brands online using social networks.

Samsung was also reported to have launched an internal "Kill Taiwan" campaign, which has helped to strengthen relationships between Apple and Taiwan, particularly Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., which Apple is investing billions into in order to shift its ARM processor fabrication orders away from Samsung.

TSMC


Samsung suffers blowback after weaponizing its component supply



Apple has similarly taken steps to shift production and component orders away from Samsung, but the company remains one of Apple's largest (if not the largest) suppliers for displays, memory, processor fabrication and other components, primarily because Samsung has invested billions in developing a vast component production facilities.

Unlike smaller companies like HTC, Apple has long had the capital to sign long term contracts, limiting its exposure to Samsung's supply shenanigans. However, the tight vertical integration within the massive Samsung Electronics conglomerate has also meant that Apple's confidential orders with Samsung's semiconductor group were illicitly shared within the company as part of Samsung's weaponizing its component relationships.

Samsung's U.S. patent trial exposed how the company leveraged its tight relationship with Apple to develop its counterfeit Galaxy brand in 2010, beginning with an intense, three month cloning effort to steal Apple's trademarks, patented designs and other technologies in the iPhone 3GS.

Samsung Galaxy iPhone


Samsung is only beginning to see the downside of competing against its best customers, with Apple's Galaxy case still dragging through the courts three years later, Apple's own efforts to leave Samsung progressing slowly, and replacement supplier efforts like Apple's TSMC ARM chip plans and those of the Taiwan government just beginning to get started.

The company has scrambled to improve its image however, with executives meeting last fall in an emergency session to construct the notion of a "strict internal firewall" that ostensibly protects its customers' strategic, confidential orders and other information from other parts of Samsung that directly compete against those same customers.

In addition to Apple, HTC and other companies in Taiwan, Nokia is also rumored to working distance itself from Samsung. A source familiar with the situation told AppleInsider that Samsung has "a record of getting orders for next-gen components, then canceling the orders. And then they show up in a Samsung phone."

Google needs Samsung to keep Android relevant



Google has attempted to keep peace within the Android ecosystem, partnering with both HTC and Samsung to develop Nexus branded devices. It even paid an astronomical $12.5 billion to acquire Motorola, largely to prevent the company from starting a patent war with other Android licensees, including Samsung.

Samsung's conduct is particularly interesting because it is now the only really successful Android licensee. However, Samsung also increasingly relies upon its own Galaxy brand rather than promoting Android as a platform.

The company has recently put its resources behind Tizen, an independent Linux project formed with Intel that Samsung could use to marginalize Android into being nothing more than a hobbyist platform leveraged by cheap phone makers for overseas markets that don't even use Google services or its Play store.

Without Samsung, Android would be virtually worthless to Google.
post #2 of 36

This is what you get when you rely on companies whose executives are corrupted and full of scandals!
 

post #3 of 36
Hello, proofreaders! Where are you???

Not to mention overly sensationalist sub-headings.
post #4 of 36
Sammy would never do anything this sleazy. /s

Anti trust issues in Korea? Nothing a few bribes can't cure.
post #5 of 36
Originally Posted by TokyoJimu View Post
Hello, proofreaders! Where are you???

 

"Out too launch."

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #6 of 36
Of course - they don't dare complain about Google's sleeping with Samsung a lot more than it does with the other manufacturers in it's "harem" - if I were HTC I'd be royally pissed about the "google" S4 and that valuable keynote advert/shoutout.

The Android hardware scene looks pretty unstable with the 800 lb Samsung in the room.

Is Google/Samsung going to become WinTel all over again?
post #7 of 36
Interesting how this article has to be on Appleinsider. The author tries to find some relevancy to Apple and tries so hard to make some but it is only tangential.

Anyhow HTC is just whining about it. Unless they can prove they offered better terms to Samsung than Apple or Nokia or Samsung's mobile division, they will just lose.

It is just how market runs.
post #8 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoJimu View Post

Hello, proofreaders! Where are you???

Not to mention overly sensationalist sub-headings.

 

 

"Suffers Blowback?" "counterfeit Galaxy brand?"

 

 

Hmmmm. Kind of hard to take a source too seriously if it's misrepresenting events or if its diction is dripping with this much bias. 

 

 

Then again, the author probably knows his audience pretty well and is just feeding into their emotional attachments. 1biggrin.gif

post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Interesting how this article has to be on Appleinsider. The author tries to find some relevancy to Apple and tries so hard to make some but it is only tangential.

Anyhow HTC is just whining about it. Unless they can prove they offered better terms to Samsung than Apple or Nokia or Samsung's mobile division, they will just lose.

It is just how market runs.

 

 

Even then, Samsung isn't under any legal obligation to do business with other companies, let alone competitors like HTC. I've had wannabe lawyers try to claim there's an antitrust issue when Samsung becomes selective about who can buy its AMOLED panels. Funny how asking for the legal authority to support this claim can produce so much grumbling and denial

 

As other OLED manufacturers scale up production over the next few years, I don't see this being much of an issue anyway. The race is no longer to develop small AMOLED panels cost efficiently. That was done years ago. It's now to get an AMOLED TV into the consumer market soon. 

post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

"Out too launch."

Do they work at NASA?
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Do they work at NASA?

 

One out of three words spelled correctly ain't bad. 1hmm.gif

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #12 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobsisgod View Post

 


If you don't like reading facts I'm sure there are other sources for news that you may like better.

 

There are facts, and then there are embellishments which in reality are merely opinions. All I did was point out a couple of areas that would lead a reasonable person to recognize the author has some bias. 

 

 

Bias=/=facts--but you knew that, right? Hopefully? 

 

 

If you don't like reading an objective assessment of the article, I'm sure there are other sources of news you may prefer that don't contain it. lol.gif

post #13 of 36
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
One out of three words spelled correctly ain't bad. 1hmm.gif

 

That's Yahoo!'s motto since buying Tumblr and Flickr.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post


Even then, Samsung isn't under any legal obligation to do business with other companies, let alone competitors like HTC. I've had wannabe lawyers try to claim there's an antitrust issue when Samsung becomes selective about who can buy its AMOLED panels. Funny how asking for the legal authority to support this claim can produce so much grumbling and denial

As other OLED manufacturers scale up production over the next few years, I don't see this being much of an issue anyway. The race is no longer to develop small AMOLED panels cost efficiently. That was done years ago. It's now to get an AMOLED TV into the consumer market soon. 

I wasnt suggesting sufficiency of their claim by proving just that. If I confused you I apologize.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

 

 

Even then, Samsung isn't under any legal obligation to do business with other companies, let alone competitors like HTC. I've had wannabe lawyers try to claim there's an antitrust issue when Samsung becomes selective about who can buy its AMOLED panels. Funny how asking for the legal authority to support this claim can produce so much grumbling and denial

 

As other OLED manufacturers scale up production over the next few years, I don't see this being much of an issue anyway. The race is no longer to develop small AMOLED panels cost efficiently. That was done years ago. It's now to get an AMOLED TV into the consumer market soon. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post


I wasnt suggesting sufficiency of their claim by proving just that. If I confused you I apologize.

 

 

Bah, I was actually agreeing with you and adding another reason why their complaints have been largely baseless.

post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobsisgod View Post

 

Stop being a dimwit.  Don't you have other places you could troll?

 

 

I'm sorry, was there anything factually wrong in what I said? Wouldn't you agree I've been correct in my posts in this thread thus far? I didn't mean to come off as a troll, although going back, I can see why anyone would interpret my first post as a trolly statement. I was just making a point that the author probably shouldn't get the full brunt of the blame for how the article was fashioned. He's just writing to a specific audience. That's not even a journalistic skill, that's just a basic English essay writing rule we all learn in freshman year of high school.

 

If you're offended by what I've said so far, the problem lies with you, and not with me.

post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

I'm sorry, was there anything factually wrong in what I said? Wouldn't you agree I've been correct in my posts in this thread thus far? I didn't mean to come off as a troll, although going back, I can see why anyone would interpret my first post as a trolly statement. I was just making a point that the author probably shouldn't get the full brunt of the blame for how the article was fashioned. He's just writing to a specific audience. That's not even a journalistic skill, that's just a basic English essay writing rule we all learn in freshman year of high school.

If you're offended by what I've said so far, the problem lies with you, and not with me.

So you're claiming that the article is not actually factually correct and just written to get an emotional response from a particular audience, and Samsung have never, ever been guilty of illegal behaviour?

On a regular basis.

And been charged for it.

Statements like that will get you sued by Apple once they learn that you've stolen their reality distortion field.
There's nothing your wife/girlfriend/partner wouldn't like more than a 6 Plus...
Reply
There's nothing your wife/girlfriend/partner wouldn't like more than a 6 Plus...
Reply
post #18 of 36

HTC and others should just not buy from Samsung.....problem solved....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

Interesting how this article has to be on Appleinsider. The author tries to find some relevancy to Apple and tries so hard to make some but it is only tangential.

Anyhow HTC is just whining about it. Unless they can prove they offered better terms to Samsung than Apple or Nokia or Samsung's mobile division, they will just lose.

It is just how market runs.

 

If you don't understand the relevance to Apple as a Samsung customer, perhaps you could find a child to explain it to you. 

post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

... Bias=/=facts ...

 

 

Not really. Bias just means you are predisposed to think a certain way. If that predisposition happens to coincide with the facts, then one's "biased" viewpoint and the facts are the same. Concluding that someone is wrong because they are biased is just as wrong as concluding that they are right because they are unbiased. (Well, no one is really entirely unbiased.) Bias has nothing to do with the truth or facts.

post #21 of 36

Samsung has always been ruthless and focussed on a singular goal, absolute domination of any market they enter to the benefit of the extended family group that largely owns them.

 

Samsung are not riding in as some sort of noble white knight to save us from the "evil" Apple as some, possibly paid by Samsung, would have us believe.

 

Pre iPhone they copied Nokia dual sliders, Motorola Razrs and Blackberry QWERTY candybars.

 

Treating their customers and competitors in this way is nothing new, they've been doing it for over a decade.

 

Apple is almost the only company making enough money to withstand their onslaught and they continuously get torn down for doing so.

 

That's just the way things are, the nature of the capitalist beast.

 

Survival of the fittest.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Not really. Bias just means you are predisposed to think a certain way. If that predisposition happens to coincide with the facts, then one's "biased" viewpoint and the facts are the same. Concluding that someone is wrong because they are biased is just as wrong as concluding that they are right because they are unbiased. (Well, no one is really entirely unbiased.) Bias has nothing to do with the truth or facts.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

There's a context behind that phrase you quoted. If your predisposition toward a particular approach or leaning is causing you to reach unsupported conclusions based on insufficient facts, then yes, there's an issue. It is completely possible to have bias and to still have a well-researched argument. But on the flipside, it's also possible to be biased to the point of leaning stubbornly toward one point of view  without objectively taking a moment to consider the facts. The other poster who has having an issue with me pointing this out was equating the author's claim about the Galaxy being "counterfeit" and the "blowback" to being "facts."

 

So really, your post should have been addressed to him, not to me. Again--facts aren't just details that you want to hear. Facts have truth value.

 

Those aren't facts, those are just baseless assertions arising from the author's own bias. But as I also noted earlier, it could independently be a manifestation of his desire to cater to a particular audience. It could be he doesn't actually believe much of what he wrote, which I really have no personal problem with. I was just surprised at first that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide his bias.

post #23 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

HTC and others should just not buy from Samsung.....problem solved....

But it makes for a whole other set of problems.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post

 

Those aren't facts, those are just baseless assertions arising from the author's own bias. But as I also noted earlier, it could independently be a manifestation of his desire to cater to a particular audience. It could be he doesn't actually believe much of what he wrote, which I really have no personal problem with. I was just surprised at first that the author didn't even seem to be trying to hide his bias.

Biases are fact-based. It's simply a systematic skewing of facts, perhaps to support a particular worldview. AI is biased. It is a pro-Apple website, and spins facts in a way that is favorable to Apple. That's a fact.

 

If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave.

post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

If you don't understand the relevance to Apple as a Samsung customer, perhaps you could find a child to explain it to you. 

Unnecessary hostility. Stupidity at best.
post #26 of 36
Corporations have more or less "soul" depending on many factors. Apple has a pretty tight product focus, and was until recently mostly the creature of a single man. Samsung is much more diversified and multinational, and is the creature of a rotating roundtable of anonymous bureaucrats. As such, their corporate soul (conscience) is much less evident. Apple isn't perfect, but on a sliding scale I would rather live in their world than Samsung's.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Biases are fact-based. It's simply a systematic skewing of facts, perhaps to support a particular worldview. AI is biased. It is a pro-Apple website, and spins facts in a way that is favorable to Apple. That's a fact.

If you don't like it, you're welcome to leave.

To me at least a biased opinion can have components that are not true. You call that illusions myths or baseless assertions.
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack99 View Post


Yes and no.

There's a context behind that phrase you quoted. If your predisposition toward a particular approach or leaning is causing you to reach unsupported conclusions based on insufficient facts, then yes, there's an issue. It is completely possible to have bias and to still have a well-researched argument. But on the flipside, it's also possible to be biased to the point of leaning stubbornly toward one point of view  without objectively taking a moment to consider the facts. ...

No.

Whether you reach a conclusion objectively or by a whim, you may be right or wrong in either case. Even an unsupported conclusion based on insufficient facts may be the correct conclusion. Even if an argument is wholly fallacious, it's conclusion may be true. No matter how stubbornly biased you are, it doesn't make you necessarily wrong.

The bias or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether a statement is true, so, if you want to argue it's false, merely citing bias does not an argument make. You could be right (or wrong) in denying the assertions of the article, but any "bias" contained therein is not relevant to proving you are.
post #29 of 36
Unless you're dumb, blind or stupid, you would notice the striking resemblance between Apple and Samsung's hardware/software, most especially a few years ago. The point is, Samsung who was supposed to be Apple's manufacturing partner, stole Apple's designs and confidential IP, copied Apple's products and benefited from them tremendously at a crucial time in the market. Those trolls that say "move on already" are ignoring a relevant and legitimate grievance on Apple's part. Theft is theft, whether it occurred years ago or worse, still occurring. This cockroach family that runs Samsung is corrupt and deserves nothing less than homeless bankruptcy. You can stick your "emotional attachments" theory where the Sun don't shine. Whether there's an emotional charge or not, the proof is in the pudding and that is why the jury decided so quickly against Samsung.
post #30 of 36

What's with all these concern trolls trying to derail the argument? Who cares about whether the writer is biased - the topic is whether or not Samsung plays games with supplying components.

 

The comment "strategically denied" is interesting. HTC would likely have had a contract with Samsung to buy panels, but that doesn't mean Samsung could deny them. For example, Samsung could claim yield issues and reduce panels shipped to HTC. How could HTC tell if they really had yield issues or were lying to screw up HTC's ability to make phones?

 

Apple has several engineers that actually work in Samsung factories (they even have their own office space). Obviously Samsung couldn't pull this with Apple as their engineers are working in the actual plants and would be very familiar with things like yield issues. But smaller companies (like HTC) likely don't get this kind of access so they couldn't verify any Samsung claims.

 

The writer is also correct about Samsung sharing information from one division (semiconductors) with another (mobile). Well, the writer doesn't have proof but only a complete fool would think there was no information sharing going on. A Samsung manager was even convicted for selling component order information from the original iPad to a hedge fund. And this is only the one that got caught. How many more sell Apple information? Even rumors of Apple products cause the stock to fluctuate - having inside information would be very tempting to a large number of Samsung employees.

post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shervin View Post

Unless you're dumb, blind or stupid, you would notice the striking resemblance between Apple and Samsung's hardware/software, most especially a few years ago. The point is, Samsung who was supposed to be Apple's manufacturing partner, stole Apple's designs and confidential IP, copied Apple's products and benefited from them tremendously at a crucial time in the market. Those trolls that say "move on already" are ignoring a relevant and legitimate grievance on Apple's part. Theft is theft, whether it occurred years ago or worse, still occurring. This cockroach family that runs Samsung is corrupt and deserves nothing less than homeless bankruptcy. You can stick your "emotional attachments" theory where the Sun don't shine. Whether there's an emotional charge or not, the proof is in the pudding and that is why the jury decided so quickly against Samsung.

I am surprised how you reached all the legal conclusions in favor of Apple that the courts in the world seem to be in split.

If thats how you see the world thats fine. But you shouldnt call others dumb blind or stupid because you may be the one.
post #32 of 36
It seems like many of users here have a strange view of rights and obligations as well as antitrust concerns.

You guys are so right that Apple has no obligation to license out its patents to anyone and has all rights to deny others or selectively lincenses out, unless they are SEP.

Similarly Samsung is under no obligation to sell its componenets to anyone if they desire so. Now they sell a lot to Apple because Apple gives Samsung enough capital incentive to deal with them even when the two are competitors and even hostile to each other. HTC simply does not cut it.

If Samsung acquired already established market leading component makers in an attempt to secure an essential component for its own use or to "strategically deny" others, there may be an antitrust concern which is still relatively difficult to prove. Anyhow, that is not so. Just like Apple poured tons of money to develop its patent portfolio Samsung paid a ton to R&D its components. In other words, Samsung's component subsidiaries have grown organically.

Edit. One thing I would like to add is that unlike patents which you have no supply constraints and thus can license out to infinite licensees, you cannot do so for goods--making Samsung inevitably selective as to with whom they contract out. And I wonder what you guys would say if Apple was denied and HTC got the deal with Samsung...
Edited by Loptimist - 5/30/13 at 5:55am
post #33 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


But it makes for a whole other set of problems.

Yes it does...but what can they only get from Samsung and not anyone else? It is the law of supply and demand. If Samsung has a product that the have to have then Samsung can dictate price. They are willing to pay a premium to have the Samsung product/parts. the same thing we do for Apple products. We pay a higher price for a better product by Apple. But in the end it is worth it.....

If Samsung negotiates a contract for products for HTC at a fixed price but then sells the same products at a different price to another company...well HTC is free to not buy the products. I am sure Apple has contracts with suppliers that other companies would die to have....

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loptimist View Post

It seems like many of users here have a strange view of rights and obligations as well as antitrust concerns.

You guys are so right that Apple has no obligation to license out its patents to anyone and has all rights to deny others or selectively lincenses out, unless they are SEP.

Similarly Samsung is under no obligation to sell its componenets to anyone if they desire so. Now they sell a lot to Apple because Apple gives Samsung enough capital incentive to deal with them even when the two are competitors and even hostile to each other. HTC simply does not cut it.

If Samsung acquired already established market leading component makers in an attempt to secure an essential component for its own use or to "strategically deny" others, there may be an antitrust concern which is still relatively difficult to prove. Anyhow, that is not so. Just like Apple poured tons of money to develop its patent portfolio Samsung paid a ton to R&D its components. In other words, Samsung's component subsidiaries have grown organically.

Edit. One thing I would like to add is that unlike patents which you have no supply constraints and thus can license out to infinite licensees, you cannot do so for goods--making Samsung inevitably selective as to with whom they contract out. And I wonder what you guys would say if Apple was denied and HTC got the deal with Samsung...

I'm not sure if you really read the article.  It states the following:

 

"Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product."

 

This statement "implies" that there WAS a contract with Samsung to supply these components to HTC, as they were already being built and sold.  Samsung then decided NOT to fulfill it's contractual obligation to supply the screens.  While I say implied, I cannot see any reason why HTC would not have a signed contract with Samsung to deliver at least a certain number of components to them.

 

While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.

post #35 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy1958 View Post

I'm not sure if you really read the article.  It states the following:

 

"Tong noted that after HTC had developed its Desire phone using an Samsung AMOLED screen in 2010, as soon as its sales began taking off Samsung "strategically declined" to fill orders for the critical component, forcing HTC to redesign its product."

 

This statement "implies" that there WAS a contract with Samsung to supply these components to HTC, as they were already being built and sold.  Samsung then decided NOT to fulfill it's contractual obligation to supply the screens.  While I say implied, I cannot see any reason why HTC would not have a signed contract with Samsung to deliver at least a certain number of components to them.

 

While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.

 

 

Well, component shortage isn't quite unheard of in this industry.  I'm not sure how you are extrapolating so much detail from Tong's vague statement, but what is his evidence that Samsung "strategically declined to provide it with crucial parts for years"?  IIRC, back in 2010, Samsung was pretty much the only one making AMOLED displays in volume due to technical difficulties in manufacturing -- Samsung still has 95+% AMOLED marketshare in 2013.

 

And why did HTC wait "years" knowing that there is only one manufacturer able to produce it in volume or that the only supplier was also competing with HTC in the smartphone market?  Didn't HTC go with SLCD display, also 50-50 owned by Samsung and Sony (now entirely owned by Samsung)?  


Edited by tooltalk - 5/30/13 at 12:26pm
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofy1958 View Post

I'm not sure if you really read the article. 

...

While Samsung is certainly allowed to only deal with companies that they wish to deal with, they are completely in the wrong to withhold or cancel shipments to a competitor that they have a signed contract with.

Interesting. So you are saying HTC and Samsung, two sophisticated parties with a bunch of lawyers, went into a contractual relationship without any provision for breaching the contract? Or are you saying that HTC is so dumb not to raise that provision and ask for compensation? Or Samsung is so eager to kill HTC that they are willing to compensate HTC for violating a contract?

I am not sure but if in fact there was a contract b/w the two and Samsung unilaterally refused to deal with HTC, HTC better raises claims under contracts law cause that is much simpler.

The fact that they are raising issues with anticompetitive practices implies that either their contract was bad (i laugh at the whining) or Samsung had a legitimate reasons to terminate the contract, leaving no claims for HTC to raise. And ultimately that they are unable to secure enough components is probably because they do not give enough incentive to Samsung, which Samsung has every rights to decide, as I said above.
Edited by Loptimist - 5/30/13 at 9:37am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • HTC next to accuse Samsung of using component supplies as a "competitive weapon"
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › HTC next to accuse Samsung of using component supplies as a "competitive weapon"