[...] This is the reason why companies try to diversify their revenue sources as much as possible for fear of business declining (either through competition or by the courts). [...]
This is the reason why Apple tries to diversify their component suppliers as much as possible. So they can dump the ones who do stupid things. As in leak product information (like ATI did back in 2000) or by attempting to undermine Apple's businesses.
Samsung is playing Russian Roulette, Korean-style. Apple isn't Samsung's only source of revenue. But Apple is a major customer. And I suspect a major reason for folding the LCD division into the semiconductor division is to attempt to hide the LCD division's poor performance.
There is little chance this will happen. Apple hired Tim Cook to get itself out of manufacturing. Because of accounting rules, Apple would see its earnings drop if it owned the factory because chips on hand would get accounted against earnings. I doubt it would risk that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Samsungs custom chip business is like 80 to 85% Apple already. I would think this would lower chip costs to Apple. It is obvious Apple needs are great enough to support a full scale manufacturing operation.
Still I don't think Apple is ready to part ways with Samsung Semiconductor yet. If anything they need a second manufacture just to keep up with demand. A diverse supplier base is a very good thing.
This is the reason why Apple tries to diversify their component suppliers as much as possible. So they can dump the ones who do stupid things. As in leak product information (like ATI did back in 2000) or by attempting to undermine Apple's businesses.
Samsung is playing Russian Roulette, Korean-style. Apple isn't Samsung's only source of revenue. But Apple is a major customer. And I suspect a major reason for folding the LCD division into the semiconductor division is to attempt to hide the LCD division's poor performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89
My thoughts exactly.
"OH BUGGER! They've found us out! Quick, distract them with the megaphones!"
I like the phrase "grasping at straws". Seems quite apt for Samsung at this stage.
There is little chance this will happen. Apple hired Tim Cook to get itself out of manufacturing. Because of accounting rules, Apple would see its earnings drop if it owned the factory because chips on hand would get accounted against earnings. I doubt it would risk that.
Right, I'd also add that Apple's chip consumption in mobile actually isn't big enough to support it owning it's own production facilities. Yes it uses a big proportion of Samsung's foundry business but Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business. A lot of the investment in one part of Samsung Semiconductors carries across to the other. So while Apple could easily use the output of a Fab, it couldn't support the R&D expenses needed to stay at the cutting edge of Fab development, and it wouldn't have any use for the old Fabs once it moved to new processes.
It works far far better for Apple to partner with a firm like TSMC.
Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business.
Samsung working on its own stuff, such as 3GS? Damn if that's not a smoking gun against Samsung in the patent infringement fight. This will be entered into evidence. Lucy Koh is not going rule favorably for Samsung with this new information.
The panels are mid-tier for 24". They aren't NEC or HP LP2475w quality panels. They don't even stand in the same room as EIZO [most don't], but their Monitor frames [enclosures] are weak, structurally cheap and that glossy black look. Truly cheap.
The iPhone and iPad are convincing people that yes you do get higher quality from Apple. This trickles over to their iMacs, Mac Pros, Macbooks, mac mini, airport units, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc.
Most people after they walk into an Apple store and walk over to a Best Buy laugh and walk around laughing even more at how cheap the stuff is over at Best Buy that isn't Apple designed.
sure, sure. LG made displays in best buy are 'cheap' but when lg makes them for iphone, macbook then they superior. don't confuse the housing with the panel. samsung makes some very good panels as well.just because apple is now litigating doesn't mean you have to hate all samsung products. stop being a mindless drone.
samsung is coming out with some very good products to compete with apple. only a complete idiot would think they were apple products but they are very competitive and closely designed to fit in that 'copenhagen' niche that apple thinks it came up with.
Samsung working on its own stuff, such as 3GS? Damn if that's not a smoking gun against Samsung in the patent infringement fight. This will be entered into evidence. Lucy Koh is not going rule favorably for Samsung with this new information.
Ok - I get that you're trying to be funny and sarcastic, but I'm not actually getting what your joke is.
What you fail to understand is, historically, ITC (trade commission) complaints are examined much quicker than the US courts.
I fully understand that, but they still can get bounced down to ITC staff, and go through various stages of appeal and counter. Summary judgement such as the one that Apple is requesting is very rare and only done when the case is egregious. Apple is far from sure to get it, Samsung really has no chance.
The S3 case is an ITC complaint, and its been going for months.
Ok - I get that you're trying to be funny and sarcastic, but I'm not actually getting what your joke is.
When a joke fails, it could be the audience or it could be the comic who fails to make the humorous connection. Generally, I am of the mindset that a joke tends to find its corresponding audience. Like Apple, I aim for the deep end and am ok when my humor does not win over the whole market ;-)
Ah, "syngery," the corporate code word for layoffs.
Actually, "synergy" means that the whole working together is worth more than the individual parts. In this case, they must be suffering from "anti-synergy".
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how Samsung would benefit from the injunction to ban the imports of iPads and iPhones into the U.S. If they succeeded, wouldn't Samsung hurt themselves because they would lose all of their business from the chips in those products? It seems to me that Samsung will lose out either way, if some agreement isn't met before the decision.
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how Samsung would benefit from the injunction to ban the imports of iPads and iPhones into the U.S. If they succeeded, wouldn't Samsung hurt themselves because they would lose all of their business from the chips in those products? It seems to me that Samsung will lose out either way, if some agreement isn't met before the decision.
When you walk out of the bank you just robbed with a gun to the head of a comely young hostage and tell the police to put the guns down or the hostage gets it, you don't actually think too much about what would happen if they call your bluff.
You particularly don't think too far ahead if you're doing it with a plastic replica of a gun.
Globalfoundries is not focused on lower power applications as I understand it.
AMDs latest Fusion processor actually run cooler than Intels Sandy Bridge. CPU performance still lags a bit but but system wise it is a better processor. Still you are correct Global is not optimized for lowest possible power, instead they try to balance for performance.
I'm actually bullish with respect to AMD right now. For those with an open mind I think you will find many of the Fusion based products to be compelling.
These days few foundries can support the research to keep them at forefront of technology. So it is a given that Apple would have to join some of the same alliances Samsung is a member of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Right, I'd also add that Apple's chip consumption in mobile actually isn't big enough to support it owning it's own production facilities.
I'm not sure I agree. They already employ almost all of Samsungs foundry capability. That demand is growing rapidly. That is why I'm not surprised at all that they are looking at TMSC as they need a second source to keep up with blooming demand.
Quote:
Yes it uses a big proportion of Samsung's foundry business but Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business.
True they produce much but it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison here.
Quote:
A lot of the investment in one part of Samsung Semiconductors carries across to the other. So while Apple could easily use the output of a Fab, it couldn't support the R&D expenses needed to stay at the cutting edge of Fab development, and it wouldn't have any use for the old Fabs once it moved to new processes.
No fab, except for maybe Intel, has the capability to support R&D for the next nodes. Apple would have to join one alliance or another just like Samsung has to.
As for old fabs you might have a point but even here Apple has options. They can place older chios into things like AppleTV, Airport(s) and the like. Plus they could turn around and manufacture other parts of their handhelds. Lastly the could just sell old chips on the open market or go the foundry way.
Quote:
It works far far better for Apple to partner with a firm like TSMC.
Possibly. However it isn't impossible for a valid case to be made with regards to building your own foundry. It depends upon just how much control Apple wants over their future. Two years ago people would gave questioned the wisdom of Apple designing their own SoC. Today people cant wait for the next "A" chip to come out.
In the end though it would likely come down to this, can Apple make the parts significantly cheaper themselves. As volumes increase I think they have to constantly review that question. It certainly would have been stupid 5 years ago but for the future I'm not to sure.
AMDs latest Fusion processor actually run cooler than Intels Sandy Bridge. CPU performance still lags a bit but but system wise it is a better processor. Still you are correct Global is not optimized for lowest possible power, instead they try to balance for performance.
I'm actually bullish with respect to AMD right now. For those with an open mind I think you will find many of the Fusion based products to be compelling.
You're right I should have said Ultra Low power, but you knew what I meant. Apple might actually be able to use the threat of moving the macbook business to AMD to gain access to Intel's proccesses for manufacturing the A7 - god that would be sweet. Unlikely though alas.
AMD is a great firm, without them and their Athlon line Intel would have continued beating the dead horse that was Pentium and would never have produced a decent offering. Unfortunately for AMD Intel woke up and has stayed on the ball since. I think AMDs heterogenous computing ideas are interesting, but I'm not sure they're really enough to get businesses demanding AMD machines over Intel. Last I checked they only gave really great performance with single precision operations so I stopped looking at them.
In keeping with Samsung's advertising tagline "The Wonder of Samsung", the airwaves are being saturated with aggressive Galaxy Tab commercials aimed at the iPad with "better" this and "better" that.
Samsung is either very confident of winning this lawsuit or they are being suicidal. "That's the Wonder of Samsung"
Samsung actually made me sick of hearing "Hey Soul Sister" on TV.
These days few foundries can support the research to keep them at forefront of technology. So it is a given that Apple would have to join some of the same alliances Samsung is a member of.
They'd also have to license all the manufacturing IP, and for cash because they have none of their own to share. The people licensing them that IP are the people who would much prefer to be getting Apple's business as a customer, so there's not much motivation to make it cheap. And they'd either build a plant with spare capacity that they'd have to sell, in which case they'd need to sell their services to a competitor in the CE business - or they'd not have enough, in which case they'd need to buy capacity from a competitor in the semi business.
Quote:
However it isn't impossible for a valid case to be made with regards to building your own foundry. It depends upon just how much control Apple wants over their future. Two years ago people would gave questioned the wisdom of Apple designing their own SoC. Today people cant wait for the next "A" chip to come out.
Really? I don't think I would have freaked out if people suggested Apple build their own SoC, it's a licensed CPU core with a licensed GPU module and some licensed RAM components with a bit of utility here and there. Now if they were talking about designing their own cores I'd be a bit freaked. The last integrated computer maker to do that successfully that I can think of was Acorn.
Designing a SoC probably only required a relatively small team, some nice computers and some fancy software. No multi billion dollar investments were needed. The people with the skills to do it existed in lots of firms, whereas the people with experience of operating a Fab are pretty thin on the ground.
Anyway if Apple were seriously going to invest that kind of money to build a key component themselves then the component they should be going for is the display. Users don't perceive the CPU, but they have a strong relationship with the screen, especially on a device like the iPad or iPhone. Not that I think they'll do that either.
Comments
[...] This is the reason why companies try to diversify their revenue sources as much as possible for fear of business declining (either through competition or by the courts). [...]
This is the reason why Apple tries to diversify their component suppliers as much as possible. So they can dump the ones who do stupid things. As in leak product information (like ATI did back in 2000) or by attempting to undermine Apple's businesses.
Samsung is playing Russian Roulette, Korean-style. Apple isn't Samsung's only source of revenue. But Apple is a major customer. And I suspect a major reason for folding the LCD division into the semiconductor division is to attempt to hide the LCD division's poor performance.
Samsungs custom chip business is like 80 to 85% Apple already. I would think this would lower chip costs to Apple. It is obvious Apple needs are great enough to support a full scale manufacturing operation.
Still I don't think Apple is ready to part ways with Samsung Semiconductor yet. If anything they need a second manufacture just to keep up with demand. A diverse supplier base is a very good thing.
This is the reason why Apple tries to diversify their component suppliers as much as possible. So they can dump the ones who do stupid things. As in leak product information (like ATI did back in 2000) or by attempting to undermine Apple's businesses.
Samsung is playing Russian Roulette, Korean-style. Apple isn't Samsung's only source of revenue. But Apple is a major customer. And I suspect a major reason for folding the LCD division into the semiconductor division is to attempt to hide the LCD division's poor performance.
My thoughts exactly.
"OH BUGGER! They've found us out! Quick, distract them with the megaphones!"
I like the phrase "grasping at straws". Seems quite apt for Samsung at this stage.
There is little chance this will happen. Apple hired Tim Cook to get itself out of manufacturing. Because of accounting rules, Apple would see its earnings drop if it owned the factory because chips on hand would get accounted against earnings. I doubt it would risk that.
Right, I'd also add that Apple's chip consumption in mobile actually isn't big enough to support it owning it's own production facilities. Yes it uses a big proportion of Samsung's foundry business but Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business. A lot of the investment in one part of Samsung Semiconductors carries across to the other. So while Apple could easily use the output of a Fab, it couldn't support the R&D expenses needed to stay at the cutting edge of Fab development, and it wouldn't have any use for the old Fabs once it moved to new processes.
It works far far better for Apple to partner with a firm like TSMC.
Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business.
Samsung working on its own stuff, such as 3GS? Damn if that's not a smoking gun against Samsung in the patent infringement fight. This will be entered into evidence. Lucy Koh is not going rule favorably for Samsung with this new information.
The panels are mid-tier for 24". They aren't NEC or HP LP2475w quality panels. They don't even stand in the same room as EIZO [most don't], but their Monitor frames [enclosures] are weak, structurally cheap and that glossy black look. Truly cheap.
The iPhone and iPad are convincing people that yes you do get higher quality from Apple. This trickles over to their iMacs, Mac Pros, Macbooks, mac mini, airport units, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc.
Most people after they walk into an Apple store and walk over to a Best Buy laugh and walk around laughing even more at how cheap the stuff is over at Best Buy that isn't Apple designed.
sure, sure. LG made displays in best buy are 'cheap' but when lg makes them for iphone, macbook then they superior. don't confuse the housing with the panel. samsung makes some very good panels as well.just because apple is now litigating doesn't mean you have to hate all samsung products. stop being a mindless drone.
samsung is coming out with some very good products to compete with apple. only a complete idiot would think they were apple products but they are very competitive and closely designed to fit in that 'copenhagen' niche that apple thinks it came up with.
Samsung working on its own stuff, such as 3GS? Damn if that's not a smoking gun against Samsung in the patent infringement fight. This will be entered into evidence. Lucy Koh is not going rule favorably for Samsung with this new information.
Ok - I get that you're trying to be funny and sarcastic, but I'm not actually getting what your joke is.
But as I've already pointed out, it's extraordinarily unlikely that Samsung's case would be decided as fast as Apple's.
What you fail to understand is, historically, ITC (trade commission) complaints are examined much quicker than the US courts.
What you fail to understand is, historically, ITC (trade commission) complaints are examined much quicker than the US courts.
I fully understand that, but they still can get bounced down to ITC staff, and go through various stages of appeal and counter. Summary judgement such as the one that Apple is requesting is very rare and only done when the case is egregious. Apple is far from sure to get it, Samsung really has no chance.
The S3 case is an ITC complaint, and its been going for months.
Ok - I get that you're trying to be funny and sarcastic, but I'm not actually getting what your joke is.
When a joke fails, it could be the audience or it could be the comic who fails to make the humorous connection. Generally, I am of the mindset that a joke tends to find its corresponding audience. Like Apple, I aim for the deep end and am ok when my humor does not win over the whole market ;-)
I aim for the deep end and am ok when my humor does not win over the whole market ;-)
Remember, right next to the deep end you have the concrete edge of the pool
Ah, "syngery," the corporate code word for layoffs.
Actually, "synergy" means that the whole working together is worth more than the individual parts. In this case, they must be suffering from "anti-synergy".
Is it just me, or does anyone else wonder how Samsung would benefit from the injunction to ban the imports of iPads and iPhones into the U.S. If they succeeded, wouldn't Samsung hurt themselves because they would lose all of their business from the chips in those products? It seems to me that Samsung will lose out either way, if some agreement isn't met before the decision.
When you walk out of the bank you just robbed with a gun to the head of a comely young hostage and tell the police to put the guns down or the hostage gets it, you don't actually think too much about what would happen if they call your bluff.
You particularly don't think too far ahead if you're doing it with a plastic replica of a gun.
Globalfoundries is not focused on lower power applications as I understand it.
AMDs latest Fusion processor actually run cooler than Intels Sandy Bridge. CPU performance still lags a bit but but system wise it is a better processor. Still you are correct Global is not optimized for lowest possible power, instead they try to balance for performance.
I'm actually bullish with respect to AMD right now. For those with an open mind I think you will find many of the Fusion based products to be compelling.
Right, I'd also add that Apple's chip consumption in mobile actually isn't big enough to support it owning it's own production facilities.
I'm not sure I agree. They already employ almost all of Samsungs foundry capability. That demand is growing rapidly. That is why I'm not surprised at all that they are looking at TMSC as they need a second source to keep up with blooming demand.
Yes it uses a big proportion of Samsung's foundry business but Samsung also has a lot of fabs working entirely on its own stuff, such as the processor in the iPhone 3GS and on the huge DRAM and NAND business.
True they produce much but it isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison here.
A lot of the investment in one part of Samsung Semiconductors carries across to the other. So while Apple could easily use the output of a Fab, it couldn't support the R&D expenses needed to stay at the cutting edge of Fab development, and it wouldn't have any use for the old Fabs once it moved to new processes.
No fab, except for maybe Intel, has the capability to support R&D for the next nodes. Apple would have to join one alliance or another just like Samsung has to.
As for old fabs you might have a point but even here Apple has options. They can place older chios into things like AppleTV, Airport(s) and the like. Plus they could turn around and manufacture other parts of their handhelds. Lastly the could just sell old chips on the open market or go the foundry way.
It works far far better for Apple to partner with a firm like TSMC.
Possibly. However it isn't impossible for a valid case to be made with regards to building your own foundry. It depends upon just how much control Apple wants over their future. Two years ago people would gave questioned the wisdom of Apple designing their own SoC. Today people cant wait for the next "A" chip to come out.
In the end though it would likely come down to this, can Apple make the parts significantly cheaper themselves. As volumes increase I think they have to constantly review that question. It certainly would have been stupid 5 years ago but for the future I'm not to sure.
AMDs latest Fusion processor actually run cooler than Intels Sandy Bridge. CPU performance still lags a bit but but system wise it is a better processor. Still you are correct Global is not optimized for lowest possible power, instead they try to balance for performance.
I'm actually bullish with respect to AMD right now. For those with an open mind I think you will find many of the Fusion based products to be compelling.
You're right I should have said Ultra Low power, but you knew what I meant. Apple might actually be able to use the threat of moving the macbook business to AMD to gain access to Intel's proccesses for manufacturing the A7 - god that would be sweet. Unlikely though alas.
AMD is a great firm, without them and their Athlon line Intel would have continued beating the dead horse that was Pentium and would never have produced a decent offering. Unfortunately for AMD Intel woke up and has stayed on the ball since. I think AMDs heterogenous computing ideas are interesting, but I'm not sure they're really enough to get businesses demanding AMD machines over Intel. Last I checked they only gave really great performance with single precision operations so I stopped looking at them.
In keeping with Samsung's advertising tagline "The Wonder of Samsung", the airwaves are being saturated with aggressive Galaxy Tab commercials aimed at the iPad with "better" this and "better" that.
Samsung is either very confident of winning this lawsuit or they are being suicidal. "That's the Wonder of Samsung"
Samsung actually made me sick of hearing "Hey Soul Sister" on TV.
These days few foundries can support the research to keep them at forefront of technology. So it is a given that Apple would have to join some of the same alliances Samsung is a member of.
They'd also have to license all the manufacturing IP, and for cash because they have none of their own to share. The people licensing them that IP are the people who would much prefer to be getting Apple's business as a customer, so there's not much motivation to make it cheap. And they'd either build a plant with spare capacity that they'd have to sell, in which case they'd need to sell their services to a competitor in the CE business - or they'd not have enough, in which case they'd need to buy capacity from a competitor in the semi business.
However it isn't impossible for a valid case to be made with regards to building your own foundry. It depends upon just how much control Apple wants over their future. Two years ago people would gave questioned the wisdom of Apple designing their own SoC. Today people cant wait for the next "A" chip to come out.
Really? I don't think I would have freaked out if people suggested Apple build their own SoC, it's a licensed CPU core with a licensed GPU module and some licensed RAM components with a bit of utility here and there. Now if they were talking about designing their own cores I'd be a bit freaked. The last integrated computer maker to do that successfully that I can think of was Acorn.
Designing a SoC probably only required a relatively small team, some nice computers and some fancy software. No multi billion dollar investments were needed. The people with the skills to do it existed in lots of firms, whereas the people with experience of operating a Fab are pretty thin on the ground.
Anyway if Apple were seriously going to invest that kind of money to build a key component themselves then the component they should be going for is the display. Users don't perceive the CPU, but they have a strong relationship with the screen, especially on a device like the iPad or iPhone. Not that I think they'll do that either.