I can't imagine Samsung Electronics having fabrication technology that can't be matched by Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC.
Believe it. Apple went hat in hand back to Samsung and begged them to produce the A6. If Apple had a choice, why didn't they go to Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC?
Apple and Tim Cook got to know that the A series processors like the A5 are the single most important component for Apple, besides the Intel chips. They should know about the risk of using a single supplier like Samsung. Plus the geopolitical risks. After the earthquake in Japan, they should be aware of Black Swan supply disruptions.
Apple has to use multiple suppliers with geographic diversification to reduce risk... even if costs more. Why not Intel? IBM? They are not going to double cross Apple.
Apple and Tim Cook obviously know that. Apple and Tim Cook likely tried to get other chip makers to do business with them. Apple and Tim Cook seemingly were turned down by other chip makers, and were forced to go with Samsung and to use a single supplier.
My impression is that Apple offers deals that few companies are inclined to accept. Their deal with Sprint was way over the top. Samsung seems to not care whether Apple remains a customer or not. Apple was not successful in getting any other chip maker to deal with them on the A6.
But nobody knows what is really going on - all we have to go on is second hand tea leaf reading by the media.
Believe it. Apple went hat in hand back to Samsung and begged them to produce the A6. If Apple had a choice, why didn't they go to Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC?
What on earth makes you think Apple begged Samsung for anything? You're always clamoring for evidence when people make claims here and yet you throw out at least as much inflammatory excrement as the worst of them without a shred of support.
I can't imagine Samsung Electronics having fabrication technology that can't be matched by Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC.
but a capacity one. I think Samsung has much greater capacity for production than any of those three (currently) individually. If the others can demonstrate to Apple that they can produce the quality that Apple demands its possible. Intel in particular though is trying to drive its own Atom technology in competition with the ARM architecture, and their fab is oriented to doing that - so Intel wouldn't be interested in supporting fab for ARM. The other two can.
Believe it. Apple went hat in hand back to Samsung and begged them to produce the A6. If Apple had a choice, why didn't they go to Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC?
Intel? To produce ARM-based processors? Are you serious?
He said Intel would be happy to produce chip cores based on its own architecture for other companies but that allowing rival architectures to be manufactured in its plants would be a tough decision.
"If Apple or Sony came to us and said 'I want to do a product that involves your IA (Intel architecture) core and put some of my IP around it', I wouldn't blink. That would be fantastic business for us."
"Then you get into the middle ground of 'I don't want it to be a IA core, I want it to be my own custom-designed core,' and then you are only getting the manufacturing margin, (and) that would be a much more in-depth discussion and analysis."
They didn't say that they wouldn't do it - only that it would take an in-depth discussion an analysis.
I doubt if they'd even consider it for anyone buying less than 10s of millions of custom chips per year, but Apple is in the ballpark that they've already had discussions about what to do if Apple did approach them.
Clearly, Intel is still trying to convince Apple that Atom (or whatever follows Atom) makes the most sense. If they ever get the performance/watt to the right level, I don't doubt that Apple would at least consider it. That hasn't happened yet. I suspect that Intel would only consider acting as foundry for Apple if they reach the conclusion that they're not likely to reach ARM's performance/watt any time soon.
Much of what I have read about Samsung and Apple recently leads me to believe that Samsung's legal offensive has become little more than a face-saving Kabuki.
The practical part is to use their legal dance to buy time while they change their products to avoid being in violation of Apple's property, and making nice-nice with Apple on the supplier front.
What on earth makes you think Apple begged Samsung for anything? You're always clamoring for evidence when people make claims here and yet you throw out at least as much inflammatory excrement as the worst of them without a shred of support.
Samsung has been shitting all over Apple now for a long time. Apple has not been successful in getting any other chip maker to fabricate the A6.
2+2=?
All we can do is guess. None of us have any reliable information, but all of us can add up 2 and 2.
Okay, so all we have to do is look at revenue that comes from sales of their crap hardware versus revenue from their manufacturing deals with Apple.
Revenue?
Isn't profit important?
Tell ya what, compare the profits from the two activities. Then compare the relative profitability of Apple convincing somebody else to make chips for them (no success so far for the a6...).
Then get back to me, and I might conclude that you have enough information to justify the original wild-assed guess.
But until then, know that Samsung is shitting all over Apple and Apple just signed up to hand over Billions more dollars to Samsung.
Intel? To produce ARM-based processors? Are you serious?
No.
I was pointing out to the OP that Apple did NOT have the choice to go to Intel. Indeed, they seemingly had no ability to choose any other chip maker, and were forced to accept Samsung.
That seems to me to be the most likely explanation for Apple continuing to supply Samsung with profits, despite Samsung mistreating Apple so badly.
Tell ya what, compare the profits from the two activities. Then compare the relative profitability of Apple convincing somebody else to make chips for them (no success so far for the a6...).
Then get back to me, and I might conclude that you have enough information to justify the original wild-assed guess.
But until then, know that Samsung is shitting all over Apple and Apple just signed up to hand over Billions more dollars to Samsung.
It really amazes me how you are able to predict the future with such certainty.
First, there is no public knowledge that there will even be an A6.
Second, even if there is, there is no evidence that Samsung will produce it.
Finally, even if Samsung produces it, that doesn't mean that Apple isn't already working with someone else to produce the A7 (it takes years to qualify a CPU supplier)
Since you're so good at knowing things that are well into the future, would you please pick my PowerBall numbers for me?
Comments
Why not Intel? IBM? They are not going to double cross Apple.
Intel are not a fab for hire. They make their margins by selling products they design from the bottom up.
Apple do need to diversify though, IBM is a good shout as would TSMC or Global
This implies that it was not the case in the past.
Strange diction - English is not his first language. Don't read too much into it.
I can't imagine Samsung Electronics having fabrication technology that can't be matched by Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC.
Believe it. Apple went hat in hand back to Samsung and begged them to produce the A6. If Apple had a choice, why didn't they go to Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC?
Seems that Samsung has more to gain keeping Apple as a customer than selling their own iPhone knock-offs.
You don't have nearly enough information to make that conclusion.
Apple and Tim Cook got to know that the A series processors like the A5 are the single most important component for Apple, besides the Intel chips. They should know about the risk of using a single supplier like Samsung. Plus the geopolitical risks. After the earthquake in Japan, they should be aware of Black Swan supply disruptions.
Apple has to use multiple suppliers with geographic diversification to reduce risk... even if costs more. Why not Intel? IBM? They are not going to double cross Apple.
Apple and Tim Cook obviously know that. Apple and Tim Cook likely tried to get other chip makers to do business with them. Apple and Tim Cook seemingly were turned down by other chip makers, and were forced to go with Samsung and to use a single supplier.
My impression is that Apple offers deals that few companies are inclined to accept. Their deal with Sprint was way over the top. Samsung seems to not care whether Apple remains a customer or not. Apple was not successful in getting any other chip maker to deal with them on the A6.
But nobody knows what is really going on - all we have to go on is second hand tea leaf reading by the media.
Believe it. Apple went hat in hand back to Samsung and begged them to produce the A6. If Apple had a choice, why didn't they go to Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC?
What on earth makes you think Apple begged Samsung for anything? You're always clamoring for evidence when people make claims here and yet you throw out at least as much inflammatory excrement as the worst of them without a shred of support.
I can't imagine Samsung Electronics having fabrication technology that can't be matched by Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC.
but a capacity one. I think Samsung has much greater capacity for production than any of those three (currently) individually. If the others can demonstrate to Apple that they can produce the quality that Apple demands its possible. Intel in particular though is trying to drive its own Atom technology in competition with the ARM architecture, and their fab is oriented to doing that - so Intel wouldn't be interested in supporting fab for ARM. The other two can.
You don't have nearly enough information to make that conclusion.
Okay, so all we have to do is look at revenue that comes from sales of their crap hardware versus revenue from their manufacturing deals with Apple.
"For the 2013-2014 period, we discussed how best to supply even better parts," he said.
Why in the world would anyone think that "we will have better components in 2-3 years than we have today" is newsworthy in this industry?
Ah, that was easy.
Believe it. Apple went hat in hand back to Samsung and begged them to produce the A6. If Apple had a choice, why didn't they go to Intel, Global Foundries or TSMC?
Intel? To produce ARM-based processors? Are you serious?
Intel? To produce ARM-based processors? Are you serious?
He's probably confusing it with this.
Intel? To produce ARM-based processors? Are you serious?
Actually, Intel was asked whether they would make ARM processors. Their response was pretty wishy-washy:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74P43W20110526
He said Intel would be happy to produce chip cores based on its own architecture for other companies but that allowing rival architectures to be manufactured in its plants would be a tough decision.
"If Apple or Sony came to us and said 'I want to do a product that involves your IA (Intel architecture) core and put some of my IP around it', I wouldn't blink. That would be fantastic business for us."
"Then you get into the middle ground of 'I don't want it to be a IA core, I want it to be my own custom-designed core,' and then you are only getting the manufacturing margin, (and) that would be a much more in-depth discussion and analysis."
They didn't say that they wouldn't do it - only that it would take an in-depth discussion an analysis.
I doubt if they'd even consider it for anyone buying less than 10s of millions of custom chips per year, but Apple is in the ballpark that they've already had discussions about what to do if Apple did approach them.
Clearly, Intel is still trying to convince Apple that Atom (or whatever follows Atom) makes the most sense. If they ever get the performance/watt to the right level, I don't doubt that Apple would at least consider it. That hasn't happened yet. I suspect that Intel would only consider acting as foundry for Apple if they reach the conclusion that they're not likely to reach ARM's performance/watt any time soon.
The practical part is to use their legal dance to buy time while they change their products to avoid being in violation of Apple's property, and making nice-nice with Apple on the supplier front.
What on earth makes you think Apple begged Samsung for anything? You're always clamoring for evidence when people make claims here and yet you throw out at least as much inflammatory excrement as the worst of them without a shred of support.
Samsung has been shitting all over Apple now for a long time. Apple has not been successful in getting any other chip maker to fabricate the A6.
2+2=?
All we can do is guess. None of us have any reliable information, but all of us can add up 2 and 2.
Okay, so all we have to do is look at revenue that comes from sales of their crap hardware versus revenue from their manufacturing deals with Apple.
Revenue?
Isn't profit important?
Tell ya what, compare the profits from the two activities. Then compare the relative profitability of Apple convincing somebody else to make chips for them (no success so far for the a6...).
Then get back to me, and I might conclude that you have enough information to justify the original wild-assed guess.
But until then, know that Samsung is shitting all over Apple and Apple just signed up to hand over Billions more dollars to Samsung.
2+2=?
4?
Anyway, with the rest of your post. Samsung isn't shitting all over Apple at all, for what they do' it's quite the opposite.
Intel? To produce ARM-based processors? Are you serious?
No.
I was pointing out to the OP that Apple did NOT have the choice to go to Intel. Indeed, they seemingly had no ability to choose any other chip maker, and were forced to accept Samsung.
That seems to me to be the most likely explanation for Apple continuing to supply Samsung with profits, despite Samsung mistreating Apple so badly.
Revenue?
Isn't profit important?
Tell ya what, compare the profits from the two activities. Then compare the relative profitability of Apple convincing somebody else to make chips for them (no success so far for the a6...).
Then get back to me, and I might conclude that you have enough information to justify the original wild-assed guess.
But until then, know that Samsung is shitting all over Apple and Apple just signed up to hand over Billions more dollars to Samsung.
It really amazes me how you are able to predict the future with such certainty.
First, there is no public knowledge that there will even be an A6.
Second, even if there is, there is no evidence that Samsung will produce it.
Finally, even if Samsung produces it, that doesn't mean that Apple isn't already working with someone else to produce the A7 (it takes years to qualify a CPU supplier)
Since you're so good at knowing things that are well into the future, would you please pick my PowerBall numbers for me?
It really amazes me how you are able to predict the future with such certainty.
First, there is no public knowledge that there will even be an A6.
Second, even if there is, there is no evidence that Samsung will produce it.
Samsung to supply quad-core A6 CPU to Apple
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...le_report.html
Nice try.
You WERE trying, weren't you?