Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
So because it can't be done whole hog right now they shouldn't bother with trying to move that way for the future?
This is good news! Sharp's IGZO displays should be about 30-40% more energy efficient than existing iPhone retina displays.
IGZO TFTs are more transparent, so the backlight doesn't need to be as bright for the same effective brightness.
Along with a more efficient A5 CPU, this is all leading towards Apple make a thinner, lighter new iPhone which has the same or better battery life compared to the 4S.
The next version most likely will sport the A6 with a more efficient and power multi-core GPGPU from ImgTec.
Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
Wrong. There is a reason multi-fab expansions are going on around the globe with Apple partners.
This seems very odd in many ways. I can't expect that shipping a component only this month would lead to quantities ready for sale next month. I can't imagine that Apple would allow Sharp to speak of this. Some might say Apple can't do anything about it but believe me when I say they have contracts that protect them from executives talking.
Did the original comment specifically state it was the iPhone or was that an assumption? If Sharp wants their IGZO displays to gain traction and their quality is less than displays Apple currently uses then this might be perfect for a small, cheap tablet.
According to Reuters he was specific. My 'cut him some slack' comment wasn't meant to mean I condone this rather, exactly what I said. Sharp are in very hard times and this was perhaps a political risk he took to help market confidence. I don't see why shipping in August is too late for a September release though.
According to Reuters he was specific. My 'cut him some slack' comment wasn't meant to mean I condone this rather, exactly what I said. Sharp are in very hard times and this was perhaps a political risk he took to help market confidence. I don't see why shipping in August is too late for a September release though.
I can see how that would help but I also would have expected them to get Apple's permission first and for initial shipments to have at least a month or two ago with deal inked months before that. On the flip side, what harm is there for stock holders if they have to wait a couple months to find out the company has a huge contract with Apple. If they are shipping then they are getting paid which means their next quarter would reflect that. If you're company's goal is focused on the stock price instead of the product there is something wrong with management.
I can see how that would help but I also would have expected them to get Apple's permission first and for initial shipments to have at least a month or two ago with deal inked months before that. On the flip side, what harm is there for stock holders if they have to wait a couple months to find out the company has a huge contract with Apple. If they are shipping then they are getting paid which means their next quarter would reflect that. If you're company's goal is focused on the stock price instead of the product there is something wrong with management.
No argument there. I seriously doubt he asked or got permission from Tim. This sort of thing has been going on ever since Steve returned and made Apple what it is today and of course we all remember a certain video card company getting royally raked. My guess is this will pass without much public comment from Apple but I would suspect a few choice words will have been said already over the phone.
Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
The converse is also true, but like google if Apple decided to put a 'Deny All' rule in the orders firewall, you're 'experience' would be extremely degraded.
Apple is the biggest consumer of electronic components. period. Samsung's component division head is probably in the CEO's office every day either threatening to commit ritualistic suicide on his carpet or to kill the head of consumer products for screwing up the relationship with Apple. Either way, the CEO has to be somewhat distracted;-).
Having the primary contract with Apple is printing money.... being a secondary, not so much. (Primary: we [apple] spot you your entire assembly line spend in cash up front, plus a premium for 100% of that output, plus an option for add'l components [read: No risk, as your sunk costs are paid up front, and every component after that is cash profit, and if I can make more and Apple sells more, they'll take it.]. Secondary: Here's an 10% down option for 30% (3% of planned total spend) of our chip needs... go build an assembly line if you want our business, and wait for our call [read: for 3% of the above, you have to assume the risk of nothing else.])
I'd hardly call this a leak. I don't think anyone doubts the fact that Apple is going to release a new iPhone later this year. If you noticed, he didn't give any specifications or when the iPhone will be released. If anything this is just something for Sharp's investors to bite into and potentially acquire some new investors.
The converse is also true, but like google if Apple decided to put a 'Deny All' rule in the orders firewall, you're 'experience' would be extremely degraded.
Apple is the biggest consumer of electronic components. period. Samsung's component division head is probably in the CEO's office every day either threatening to commit ritualistic suicide on his carpet or to kill the head of consumer products for screwing up the relationship with Apple. Either way, the CEO has to be somewhat distracted;-).
Having the primary contract with Apple is printing money.... being a secondary, not so much. (Primary: we [apple] spot you your entire assembly line spend in cash up front, plus a premium for 100% of that output, plus an option for add'l components [read: No risk, as your sunk costs are paid up front, and every component after that is cash profit, and if I can make more and Apple sells more, they'll take it.]. Secondary: Here's an 10% down option for 30% (3% of planned total spend) of our chip needs... go build an assembly line if you want our business, and wait for our call [read: for 3% of the above, you have to assume the risk of nothing else.])
I agree totally. I wonder what the break down is between profits from supplying Apple v profits from selling Apple knock offs? Has anyone got any data on this?
So because it can't be done whole hog right now they shouldn't bother with trying to move that way for the future?
When you're the largest component consumer in the world, you have few options for large scale fabs. They are moving that way, but even if you do, you need someone the size of Samsung to take over key fabs (CPU). Ideally, you want a BIG Fab with the ability to move mountains to hit deadlines and maintain quality for your primary source. Yet they can't be too large so that they don't care about you as a customer... say like to be held up by an Intel who says, "Whoops, we're late with SandyBridge... sorry about that"
To fund say 3-4 competitive fabs up front to develop processes to build your chips/components is a lot of duplicative effort. It's always better to fund one primary, and retain 'exclusive rights' to their work output (process and product), and once they scale it, you then take their process and present it to other people and say 'this is the process, now you pay for the implementation (we've got Samsung to work out the details) and getting your quality levels up to our needs.' In other words, in terms of risk, you need a 'partner' that has the capacity to absorb some of the risk. 4 small partners is not the same as 1 big one.
Apple is the biggest consumer of electronic components. period.
Apple is big, but in the big global picture, still not that big. Think a little outside the box.
Quote:
Samsung's component division head is probably in the CEO's office every day either threatening to commit ritualistic suicide on his carpet or to kill the head of consumer products for screwing up the relationship with Apple. Either way, the CEO has to be somewhat distracted;-).
While amusing, see above. Apple is not the center of the universe.
Certainly wouldn't be a bad thing for Apple to move away completely from Samsung. Now that the nasty personal attacks are in full flow. Samsung need Apple more than Apple need Samsung.
It will take a bit of time but Apple can get their requirements met elsewhere.
When you're the largest component consumer in the world, you have few options for large scale fabs. They are moving that way, but even if you do, you need someone the size of Samsung to take over key fabs (CPU). Ideally, you want a BIG Fab with the ability to move mountains to hit deadlines and maintain quality for your primary source. Yet they can't be too large so that they don't care about you as a customer... say like to be held up by an Intel who says, "Whoops, we're late with SandyBridge... sorry about that"
To fund say 3-4 competitive fabs up front to develop processes to build your chips/components is a lot of duplicative effort. It's always better to fund one primary, and retain 'exclusive rights' to their work output (process and product), and once they scale it, you then take their process and present it to other people and say 'this is the process, now you pay for the implementation (we've got Samsung to work out the details) and getting your quality levels up to our needs.' In other words, in terms of risk, you need a 'partner' that has the capacity to absorb some of the risk. 4 small partners is not the same as 1 big one.
This is 100% spot on. The cost factors can't be ignored. Apple would be smart to move away from Samsung, but the two will need each other for quite some time yet.
It will take a bit of time but Apple can get their requirements met elsewhere.
Really explain this, this is my point. Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue (they aren't even Samsung's biggest client), you think they will suddenly go under if Apple takes off? With Samsung controlling 50% of NAND market alone, by all means I'd love to hear how anyone else is going to crank that out to meet Apple's needs.
Really explain this, this is my point. Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue (they aren't even Samsung's biggest client), you think they will suddenly go under if Apple takes off? With Samsung controlling 50% of NAND market alone, by all means I'd love to hear how anyone else is going to crank that out to meet Apple's needs.
^This
One customer who controls about 30% of the US market and less elsewhere isn't going to sink the company. It will be a blow, no doubt, who wants to lose 10% of your business? But not one that cant be recovered by finding new customers in the other 70% of the market.
And lets remember here, those are just mobile devices. With more and more devices becoming "smart", I think Samsung's fab shops, which are ahead in terms of quality and quantity when compared to the LG's, panasonics and sharps out there, will keep churning just fine.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to keep Apple happy, they would have put their tails between their legs and ran when big bad apple first brought the lawsuits.
Obviously they looked at what apple brings in, looked at their growth trajectory in terms of their products AND new customers, and determined that Apple is not indispensable after all. Maybe three years ago when they were just a little kid on the smartphone block, but surely not when your own products outsell Apple's AND you have a whole pool of android competitors to buy up your screens, chips and memory.
Sorry, are South Korean shareholders less hesitant than shareholders everywhere else to see 10% of any sort of earnings just disappear?
The people in Korea look at Samsung as an asset to generate pride, not profit. Korea is not the US, they don't treat corporations as people, they don't treat profit maximization as the highest priority. These people are united by nationalism, not capitalism.
If there's a vote by all Koreans to let Samsung sink profit in order to hurt Apple so to gain an advantage, I've no doubt more than 50% of them will vote in favor of that.
Sorry, are South Korean shareholders less hesitant than shareholders everywhere else to see 10% of any sort of earnings just disappear?
There is a difference between saying wow that's a big business blow, or wow that hurts, than being indispensable, aka need. We need food, air and water to live. Samsung does not need Apple to live.
Comments
So because it can't be done whole hog right now they shouldn't bother with trying to move that way for the future?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennaisance
This is good news! Sharp's IGZO displays should be about 30-40% more energy efficient than existing iPhone retina displays.
IGZO TFTs are more transparent, so the backlight doesn't need to be as bright for the same effective brightness.
Along with a more efficient A5 CPU, this is all leading towards Apple make a thinner, lighter new iPhone which has the same or better battery life compared to the 4S.
The next version most likely will sport the A6 with a more efficient and power multi-core GPGPU from ImgTec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
Wrong. There is a reason multi-fab expansions are going on around the globe with Apple partners.
According to Reuters he was specific. My 'cut him some slack' comment wasn't meant to mean I condone this rather, exactly what I said. Sharp are in very hard times and this was perhaps a political risk he took to help market confidence. I don't see why shipping in August is too late for a September release though.
I can see how that would help but I also would have expected them to get Apple's permission first and for initial shipments to have at least a month or two ago with deal inked months before that. On the flip side, what harm is there for stock holders if they have to wait a couple months to find out the company has a huge contract with Apple. If they are shipping then they are getting paid which means their next quarter would reflect that. If you're company's goal is focused on the stock price instead of the product there is something wrong with management.
No argument there. I seriously doubt he asked or got permission from Tim. This sort of thing has been going on ever since Steve returned and made Apple what it is today and of course we all remember a certain video card company getting royally raked. My guess is this will pass without much public comment from Apple but I would suspect a few choice words will have been said already over the phone.
Hope it has quad pixels / grin
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Unfortunately it's just not that possible. That's like trying to use the internet and not having SOME type of even passive interaction with Google. Samsung is simply too big to ignore and really the only ones that can provide the scale of what they make for what Apple needs.
The converse is also true, but like google if Apple decided to put a 'Deny All' rule in the orders firewall, you're 'experience' would be extremely degraded.
Apple is the biggest consumer of electronic components. period. Samsung's component division head is probably in the CEO's office every day either threatening to commit ritualistic suicide on his carpet or to kill the head of consumer products for screwing up the relationship with Apple. Either way, the CEO has to be somewhat distracted;-).
Having the primary contract with Apple is printing money.... being a secondary, not so much. (Primary: we [apple] spot you your entire assembly line spend in cash up front, plus a premium for 100% of that output, plus an option for add'l components [read: No risk, as your sunk costs are paid up front, and every component after that is cash profit, and if I can make more and Apple sells more, they'll take it.]. Secondary: Here's an 10% down option for 30% (3% of planned total spend) of our chip needs... go build an assembly line if you want our business, and wait for our call [read: for 3% of the above, you have to assume the risk of nothing else.])
Quote:
Originally Posted by makingdots
Yeah, it's probably a controlled leak.
I'd hardly call this a leak. I don't think anyone doubts the fact that Apple is going to release a new iPhone later this year. If you noticed, he didn't give any specifications or when the iPhone will be released. If anything this is just something for Sharp's investors to bite into and potentially acquire some new investors.
I agree totally. I wonder what the break down is between profits from supplying Apple v profits from selling Apple knock offs? Has anyone got any data on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
So because it can't be done whole hog right now they shouldn't bother with trying to move that way for the future?
When you're the largest component consumer in the world, you have few options for large scale fabs. They are moving that way, but even if you do, you need someone the size of Samsung to take over key fabs (CPU). Ideally, you want a BIG Fab with the ability to move mountains to hit deadlines and maintain quality for your primary source. Yet they can't be too large so that they don't care about you as a customer... say like to be held up by an Intel who says, "Whoops, we're late with SandyBridge... sorry about that"
To fund say 3-4 competitive fabs up front to develop processes to build your chips/components is a lot of duplicative effort. It's always better to fund one primary, and retain 'exclusive rights' to their work output (process and product), and once they scale it, you then take their process and present it to other people and say 'this is the process, now you pay for the implementation (we've got Samsung to work out the details) and getting your quality levels up to our needs.' In other words, in terms of risk, you need a 'partner' that has the capacity to absorb some of the risk. 4 small partners is not the same as 1 big one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Wrong. There is a reason multi-fab expansions are going on around the globe with Apple partners.
Generic statement is generic. Who exactly? Foxconn is producing the stuff Samsung doesn't make basically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
Apple is the biggest consumer of electronic components. period.
Apple is big, but in the big global picture, still not that big. Think a little outside the box.
Quote:
Samsung's component division head is probably in the CEO's office every day either threatening to commit ritualistic suicide on his carpet or to kill the head of consumer products for screwing up the relationship with Apple. Either way, the CEO has to be somewhat distracted;-).
While amusing, see above. Apple is not the center of the universe.
This may well of been a controlled leak.
Certainly wouldn't be a bad thing for Apple to move away completely from Samsung. Now that the nasty personal attacks are in full flow. Samsung need Apple more than Apple need Samsung.
It will take a bit of time but Apple can get their requirements met elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
When you're the largest component consumer in the world, you have few options for large scale fabs. They are moving that way, but even if you do, you need someone the size of Samsung to take over key fabs (CPU). Ideally, you want a BIG Fab with the ability to move mountains to hit deadlines and maintain quality for your primary source. Yet they can't be too large so that they don't care about you as a customer... say like to be held up by an Intel who says, "Whoops, we're late with SandyBridge... sorry about that"
To fund say 3-4 competitive fabs up front to develop processes to build your chips/components is a lot of duplicative effort. It's always better to fund one primary, and retain 'exclusive rights' to their work output (process and product), and once they scale it, you then take their process and present it to other people and say 'this is the process, now you pay for the implementation (we've got Samsung to work out the details) and getting your quality levels up to our needs.' In other words, in terms of risk, you need a 'partner' that has the capacity to absorb some of the risk. 4 small partners is not the same as 1 big one.
This is 100% spot on. The cost factors can't be ignored. Apple would be smart to move away from Samsung, but the two will need each other for quite some time yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedicivalvole
Samsung need Apple more than Apple need Samsung.
It will take a bit of time but Apple can get their requirements met elsewhere.
Really explain this, this is my point. Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue (they aren't even Samsung's biggest client), you think they will suddenly go under if Apple takes off? With Samsung controlling 50% of NAND market alone, by all means I'd love to hear how anyone else is going to crank that out to meet Apple's needs.
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue…
Sorry, are South Korean shareholders less hesitant than shareholders everywhere else to see 10% of any sort of earnings just disappear?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
Really explain this, this is my point. Why does Samsung need Apple? They represent ~10% of annual electronics division revenue (they aren't even Samsung's biggest client), you think they will suddenly go under if Apple takes off? With Samsung controlling 50% of NAND market alone, by all means I'd love to hear how anyone else is going to crank that out to meet Apple's needs.
^This
One customer who controls about 30% of the US market and less elsewhere isn't going to sink the company. It will be a blow, no doubt, who wants to lose 10% of your business? But not one that cant be recovered by finding new customers in the other 70% of the market.
And lets remember here, those are just mobile devices. With more and more devices becoming "smart", I think Samsung's fab shops, which are ahead in terms of quality and quantity when compared to the LG's, panasonics and sharps out there, will keep churning just fine.
Look at it this way, if they wanted to keep Apple happy, they would have put their tails between their legs and ran when big bad apple first brought the lawsuits.
Obviously they looked at what apple brings in, looked at their growth trajectory in terms of their products AND new customers, and determined that Apple is not indispensable after all. Maybe three years ago when they were just a little kid on the smartphone block, but surely not when your own products outsell Apple's AND you have a whole pool of android competitors to buy up your screens, chips and memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sorry, are South Korean shareholders less hesitant than shareholders everywhere else to see 10% of any sort of earnings just disappear?
The people in Korea look at Samsung as an asset to generate pride, not profit. Korea is not the US, they don't treat corporations as people, they don't treat profit maximization as the highest priority. These people are united by nationalism, not capitalism.
If there's a vote by all Koreans to let Samsung sink profit in order to hurt Apple so to gain an advantage, I've no doubt more than 50% of them will vote in favor of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sorry, are South Korean shareholders less hesitant than shareholders everywhere else to see 10% of any sort of earnings just disappear?
There is a difference between saying wow that's a big business blow, or wow that hurts, than being indispensable, aka need. We need food, air and water to live. Samsung does not need Apple to live.
LOL-everybody knows a new iPhone is coming out soon. But how about the other products they're keeping secret?