I really can believe you just said that. When you purchase a computer of any type you need to look at the entire environment. The is no equal to Apple when it comes to this.
Recent rumors have suggested that Apple may look to reduce some of its dependence on Samsung's manufacturing operations by moving production of its next-generation "A6" chip away from the company.
Duh! We know enough about SJ to know he must be royally pissed @ Samsung. If he could cut off all purchases with them, no doubt he would. Chances are, Apple needs Samsung as a supplier, so their purchases won't go down to zero. But you can bet Samsung will lose business & revenue from Apple as a result of their actions; probably more than they'll ever make selling copycat phones & tablets.
Pennywise and pound/dollar-foolish on Samsung's part. Just plain stupid.
Pennywise and pound/dollar-foolish on Samsung's part. Just plain stupid.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
Exactly and the revenue from the chip manufacturing is far lower than the revenue from being a "device maker"
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.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
Do I care what you care? You said Samsung was being stupid, I pointed out they were being smart. It's your problem from there - do with your error as you will.
Remember, right next to the deep end you have the concrete edge of the pool
And not just at the deep end. Also at the bottom, next to the shallow end and on the sides. So it's a hard dead end whichever direction you go. So why not aim deep then? \
Exactly and the revenue from the chip manufacturing is far lower than the revenue from being a "device maker"
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Well, unless you're Intel.
Revenue from chip manufacturing is far lower than that from making devices unless you're Intel? Are you sure?
Let's look at someone who makes both. Say ... I know - Samsung!
Last quarter, they generated US$11.6B from memory and display units (which are also semiconductor products, if not chips necessarily) alone, never mind microprocessors and other chips. That total was higher than the combined revenues from ALL telecommunications products, including network gear, etc.
Let's say you are inclined to be argumentative and want to remove displays from the "chip" business. Well, according to Samsung's own corporate releases, the semiconductor business (not counting LCDs) is still slightly larger than the telecom business (which, again, includes much more than just mobile devices).
So, I'd say the premise of devices beating the chip business might not stand the test in at least one instance. For sure, the notion of "far lower revenue" is just preposterous.
Revenue from chip manufacturing is far lower than that from making devices unless you're Intel? Are you sure?
Let's look at someone who makes both. Say ... I know - Samsung!
Last quarter, they generated US$11.6B from memory and display units (which are also semiconductor products, if not chips necessarily) alone, never mind microprocessors and other chips. That total was higher than the combined revenues from ALL telecommunications products, including network gear, etc.
Let's say you are inclined to be argumentative and want to remove displays from the "chip" business. Well, according to Samsung's own corporate releases, the semiconductor business (not counting LCDs) is still slightly larger than the telecom business (which, again, includes much more than just mobile devices).
So, I'd say the premise of devices beating the chip business might not stand the test in at least one instance. For sure, the notion of "far lower revenue" is just preposterous.
I meant to say "profits" were higher. As cloudgazer pointed out their component producing business is currently being threatened by China, so now Samsung is investing more heavily into higher profit higher margins businesses like making smartphones for instance.
I meant to say "profits" were higher. As cloudgazer pointed out their component producing business is currently being threatened by China, so now Samsung is investing more heavily into higher profit higher margins businesses like making smartphones for instance.
Profits instead you meant to say. Hmmm .... Let's look at our case study again.
Samsung declared US$1.6B in operating profits from semiconductor business last Q, along with US1.4B in operating profits from the entire telecom division (which includes but is not excluded to devices).
To boot, don't most people here usually argue that only Apple makes a profit from smartphones? So how come it's suddenly more profitable more Android smartphones than memory chips?
Profits instead you meant to say. Hmmm .... Let's look at our case study again.
Samsung declared US$1.6B in operating profits from semiconductor business last Q, along with US1.4B in operating profits from the entire telecom division (which includes but is not excluded to devices).
To boot, don't most people here usually argue that only Apple makes a profit from smartphones? So how come it's suddenly more profitable more Android smartphones than memory chips?
Each phone still sells for $300-400. If the phone cost $100 to make even after licensing they're probably still making a tidy profit per phone. Making high end devices is a profitable business. With all the competition in the chip business they have to keep costs low or else lose contracts to other chip manufactures, which is what cloudgazer was eluding to. I never said the chip business was a loss for Samsung, I said devices have far higher margins.
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".
I think you may have missed the sarcasm/irony in Suddenly Newton's post.
And not just at the deep end. Also at the bottom, next to the shallow end and on the sides. So it's a hard dead end whichever direction you go. So why not aim deep then? \
I do know of one pool in north Wales where the deep end is in the middle. The Welsh are nuts.
To boot, don't most people here usually argue that only Apple makes a profit from smartphones? So how come it's suddenly more profitable more Android smartphones than memory chips?
Right now for Samsung the profits in Semi are solid, but they've seen how quickly that can change. The problem with it as a sector is that if some guy with deeper pockets than you comes in and builds enough capacity, you're dead. That's how Samsung got the business in the first place and the Chinese have to a large extent emulated the Korean Chaebol model (which itself of course emulates the Japanese Zaibatsu).
Right now only Apple is making significant profits from handsets, but Samsung's business is profitable there. Samsung's choice is between trying to increase their profits in that difficult end of the market, or staying where they are and hoping that the chinese never decide to take DRAM and Flash for themselves. It's a larger version of the problem many tech workers have, work to increase our skillset even if that in the short term may reduce our earnings, or stay with what we know and risk seeing our job outsourced to someone somewhere who can do it cheaper.
Right now for Samsung the profits in Semi are solid, but they've seen how quickly that can change. The problem with it as a sector is that if some guy with deeper pockets than you comes in and builds enough capacity, you're dead. That's how Samsung got the business in the first place and the Chinese have to a large extent emulated the Korean Chaebol model (which itself of course emulates the Japanese Zaibatsu).
Right now only Apple is making significant profits from handsets, but Samsung's business is profitable there. Samsung's choice is between trying to increase their profits in that difficult end of the market, or staying where they are and hoping that the chinese never decide to take DRAM and Flash for themselves. It's a larger version of the problem many tech workers have, work to increase our skillset even if that in the short term may reduce our earnings, or stay with what we know and risk seeing our job outsourced to someone somewhere who can do it cheaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
Each phone still sells for $300-400. If the phone cost $100 to make even after licensing they're probably still making a tidy profit per phone. Making high end devices is a profitable business. With all the competition in the chip business they have to keep costs low or else lose contracts to other chip manufactures, which is what cloudgazer was eluding to. I never said the chip business was a loss for Samsung, I said devices have far higher margins.
So, in other words, you both admit that it is currently NOT necessarily more profitable to make devices rather than chips, but you might turn out to be right in the future - emphasis on MIGHT. That kind of "forward thinking" means you never have to admit being wrong Sure, why not?
As for the Chinese emulating the Chaebol model, I find that intriguing. A key element of the Chaebol model is about family ownership, whereas the Chinese business model is really about government control. Hmmm ...
So, in other words, you both admit that it is currently NOT necessarily more profitable to make devices rather than chips, but you might turn out to be right in the future - emphasis on MIGHT. That kind of "forward thinking" means you never have to admit being wrong Sure, why not?
I never said more profitable - read my post - I said that samsung had reason to think it was safer - and that they weren't being stupid for moving further into finished consumer goods. I said
Quote:
So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
I'd stand by that statement. It was the approach that the Japanese took, the Koreans copied and now the Chinese are following with. Samsung wanted for years to be Sony, now it seems to want to be Apple, but Samsung has never been satisfied with being Samsung.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
In order for that strategy to be effective, they have to produce products people will actually buy. Apple has a lock on ¾ of the pad market. Riding Apple's coattails is far more lucrative than producing an iPad clone nobody wants.
It's an old adage: Better to have 10% of something, than 100% of nothing. Looks like a lesson Samsung will learn the hard way.
I never said more profitable - read my post - I said that samsung had reason to think it was safer - and that they weren't being stupid for moving further into finished consumer goods.
I don't think it is safer. If anything, it's more risky.
Comments
Recent rumors have suggested that Apple may look to reduce some of its dependence on Samsung's manufacturing operations by moving production of its next-generation "A6" chip away from the company.
Duh! We know enough about SJ to know he must be royally pissed @ Samsung. If he could cut off all purchases with them, no doubt he would. Chances are, Apple needs Samsung as a supplier, so their purchases won't go down to zero. But you can bet Samsung will lose business & revenue from Apple as a result of their actions; probably more than they'll ever make selling copycat phones & tablets.
Pennywise and pound/dollar-foolish on Samsung's part. Just plain stupid.
Pennywise and pound/dollar-foolish on Samsung's part. Just plain stupid.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
Exactly and the revenue from the chip manufacturing is far lower than the revenue from being a "device maker"
Exactly and the revenue from the chip manufacturing is far lower than the revenue from being a "device maker"
Well, unless you're Intel.
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.
And Bulldozer will truly piss of Intel.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
Do I care how China impacts Samsung?
Do I care how China impacts Samsung?
Do I care what you care? You said Samsung was being stupid, I pointed out they were being smart. It's your problem from there - do with your error as you will.
Remember, right next to the deep end you have the concrete edge of the pool
And not just at the deep end. Also at the bottom, next to the shallow end and on the sides. So it's a hard dead end whichever direction you go. So why not aim deep then?
Exactly and the revenue from the chip manufacturing is far lower than the revenue from being a "device maker"
Well, unless you're Intel.
Revenue from chip manufacturing is far lower than that from making devices unless you're Intel? Are you sure?
Let's look at someone who makes both. Say ... I know - Samsung!
Last quarter, they generated US$11.6B from memory and display units (which are also semiconductor products, if not chips necessarily) alone, never mind microprocessors and other chips. That total was higher than the combined revenues from ALL telecommunications products, including network gear, etc.
Let's say you are inclined to be argumentative and want to remove displays from the "chip" business. Well, according to Samsung's own corporate releases, the semiconductor business (not counting LCDs) is still slightly larger than the telecom business (which, again, includes much more than just mobile devices).
So, I'd say the premise of devices beating the chip business might not stand the test in at least one instance. For sure, the notion of "far lower revenue" is just preposterous.
Revenue from chip manufacturing is far lower than that from making devices unless you're Intel? Are you sure?
Let's look at someone who makes both. Say ... I know - Samsung!
Last quarter, they generated US$11.6B from memory and display units (which are also semiconductor products, if not chips necessarily) alone, never mind microprocessors and other chips. That total was higher than the combined revenues from ALL telecommunications products, including network gear, etc.
Let's say you are inclined to be argumentative and want to remove displays from the "chip" business. Well, according to Samsung's own corporate releases, the semiconductor business (not counting LCDs) is still slightly larger than the telecom business (which, again, includes much more than just mobile devices).
So, I'd say the premise of devices beating the chip business might not stand the test in at least one instance. For sure, the notion of "far lower revenue" is just preposterous.
I meant to say "profits" were higher. As cloudgazer pointed out their component producing business is currently being threatened by China, so now Samsung is investing more heavily into higher profit higher margins businesses like making smartphones for instance.
I meant to say "profits" were higher. As cloudgazer pointed out their component producing business is currently being threatened by China, so now Samsung is investing more heavily into higher profit higher margins businesses like making smartphones for instance.
Profits instead you meant to say. Hmmm .... Let's look at our case study again.
Samsung declared US$1.6B in operating profits from semiconductor business last Q, along with US1.4B in operating profits from the entire telecom division (which includes but is not excluded to devices).
To boot, don't most people here usually argue that only Apple makes a profit from smartphones? So how come it's suddenly more profitable more Android smartphones than memory chips?
Profits instead you meant to say. Hmmm .... Let's look at our case study again.
Samsung declared US$1.6B in operating profits from semiconductor business last Q, along with US1.4B in operating profits from the entire telecom division (which includes but is not excluded to devices).
To boot, don't most people here usually argue that only Apple makes a profit from smartphones? So how come it's suddenly more profitable more Android smartphones than memory chips?
Each phone still sells for $300-400. If the phone cost $100 to make even after licensing they're probably still making a tidy profit per phone. Making high end devices is a profitable business. With all the competition in the chip business they have to keep costs low or else lose contracts to other chip manufactures, which is what cloudgazer was eluding to. I never said the chip business was a loss for Samsung, I said devices have far higher margins.
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".
I think you may have missed the sarcasm/irony in Suddenly Newton's post.
And not just at the deep end. Also at the bottom, next to the shallow end and on the sides. So it's a hard dead end whichever direction you go. So why not aim deep then?
I do know of one pool in north Wales where the deep end is in the middle. The Welsh are nuts.
To boot, don't most people here usually argue that only Apple makes a profit from smartphones? So how come it's suddenly more profitable more Android smartphones than memory chips?
Right now for Samsung the profits in Semi are solid, but they've seen how quickly that can change. The problem with it as a sector is that if some guy with deeper pockets than you comes in and builds enough capacity, you're dead. That's how Samsung got the business in the first place and the Chinese have to a large extent emulated the Korean Chaebol model (which itself of course emulates the Japanese Zaibatsu).
Right now only Apple is making significant profits from handsets, but Samsung's business is profitable there. Samsung's choice is between trying to increase their profits in that difficult end of the market, or staying where they are and hoping that the chinese never decide to take DRAM and Flash for themselves. It's a larger version of the problem many tech workers have, work to increase our skillset even if that in the short term may reduce our earnings, or stay with what we know and risk seeing our job outsourced to someone somewhere who can do it cheaper.
Right now for Samsung the profits in Semi are solid, but they've seen how quickly that can change. The problem with it as a sector is that if some guy with deeper pockets than you comes in and builds enough capacity, you're dead. That's how Samsung got the business in the first place and the Chinese have to a large extent emulated the Korean Chaebol model (which itself of course emulates the Japanese Zaibatsu).
Right now only Apple is making significant profits from handsets, but Samsung's business is profitable there. Samsung's choice is between trying to increase their profits in that difficult end of the market, or staying where they are and hoping that the chinese never decide to take DRAM and Flash for themselves. It's a larger version of the problem many tech workers have, work to increase our skillset even if that in the short term may reduce our earnings, or stay with what we know and risk seeing our job outsourced to someone somewhere who can do it cheaper.
Each phone still sells for $300-400. If the phone cost $100 to make even after licensing they're probably still making a tidy profit per phone. Making high end devices is a profitable business. With all the competition in the chip business they have to keep costs low or else lose contracts to other chip manufactures, which is what cloudgazer was eluding to. I never said the chip business was a loss for Samsung, I said devices have far higher margins.
So, in other words, you both admit that it is currently NOT necessarily more profitable to make devices rather than chips, but you might turn out to be right in the future - emphasis on MIGHT. That kind of "forward thinking" means you never have to admit being wrong
As for the Chinese emulating the Chaebol model, I find that intriguing. A key element of the Chaebol model is about family ownership, whereas the Chinese business model is really about government control. Hmmm ...
So, in other words, you both admit that it is currently NOT necessarily more profitable to make devices rather than chips, but you might turn out to be right in the future - emphasis on MIGHT. That kind of "forward thinking" means you never have to admit being wrong
I never said more profitable - read my post - I said that samsung had reason to think it was safer - and that they weren't being stupid for moving further into finished consumer goods. I said
So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
I'd stand by that statement. It was the approach that the Japanese took, the Koreans copied and now the Chinese are following with. Samsung wanted for years to be Sony, now it seems to want to be Apple, but Samsung has never been satisfied with being Samsung.
Samsung doesn't want to be samsunged. A few decades ago RAM chips were all made in the US and the EU, they were high margin businesses. Then with a big investment of cash the Korean Chaebol and the Taiwanese moved in, jumping into a high tech business even though they were still 'developing' nations. Now the concern is that China will do the same, and throw a ton of cash at local semiconductor firms leaving Samsung with nothing. So Samsung wants to move up the tech food-chain again, because it figures it's a safer place to be - it's probably right too.
In order for that strategy to be effective, they have to produce products people will actually buy. Apple has a lock on ¾ of the pad market. Riding Apple's coattails is far more lucrative than producing an iPad clone nobody wants.
It's an old adage: Better to have 10% of something, than 100% of nothing. Looks like a lesson Samsung will learn the hard way.
I never said more profitable - read my post - I said that samsung had reason to think it was safer - and that they weren't being stupid for moving further into finished consumer goods.
I don't think it is safer. If anything, it's more risky.